Talk:FreeDOS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

Page reads like an advertisement. Additionally, information in introduction (software is under development in Beta stage) apparently contradicts information in later paragraphs that software was released on some computers (which is suggested to have happened in mid ninties)209.232.147.200 21:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FreeDOS is listed as being in beta stage because of minor bugs and missing features; it works well enough that fair number of embedded and legacy vendors have switched to it over the last few years. The Dell adoption was within the last three years or so. BobBQ 19 January 2006

It is not bad content that it is in need of cleanup but rather expanding the whole list to articles such as "installing FreeDOS as it is very limited. Freedom to share 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a new intro to this article. I found the old one to be very broken (in terms of both grammar and the degree to which it can be understood by a "lay-person"). I'm not sure if the stuff about Dell deciding to offer a desktop with FreeDOS on it already is appropriate for the intro, but I decided to include it anyways. Hope this helps! Jesusjonez^Talk 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Memory Management Split

I don't think the Memory Management section merits its own article. --Hetar 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely, beats me why anyone would suggest it, no as if it's an over-long section or of special imporatance in it's own right. Ace of Risk 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Freedom to share 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On Merging FreeDOS32 with FreeDOS

It might be a good idea to merge these two articles since they are both facets of the same operating system. Much of what can be said about one can be included in the other.

• I agree. FD32 should be put as a separate section in the article, yes?Freedom to share 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think so, they are not the same, FD32 is a micro-kernel system and targeted to run 32-bit protected programs (including the compatibility for 32-bit DOS programs) Hanzac 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But the main issue is that both are based on the same OS. We should put FD32 as a section in the FD article indicating that it is a bit different, but it is a fork too small to have its own meaningful article. Freedom to share 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree it's small and it's only a OS kernel, and a replacement one for a computer with i386 CPU at least now. At this point, I have no problem. Hanzac 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Freedom to share, IMHO it depends on what you mean for "based on the same OS". FD32 started as a 32-bit port of the FreeDOS kernel in the early time, but this idea was soon abandoned. There is very little that is strictly DOS related in FD32 itself, and there is no common code base with FreeDOS. The FD32 kernel (and modules for the matter) is intended to provide a free environment that *may* be DOS compatible if you want to do so, and *may* be used as an alternate kernel for FreeDOS, intended as a complex operating system. FD32 shares most of the DOS concepts (e.g. no protection and full hardware control by default), and FreeDOS goals though. If it is made clear that it is not just "a 32 bit version of FreeDOS", but rather "a sister project" using Jim Hall's words, I have no problem for the merge as I'm glad that FD32 is considered an effort -among the others- for the FreeDOS project, that I care. SalvoIsaja 16:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not debating here about what would be better for the general context and meaning but what would be better for the Wikipedia. Is a person more likely to look at FD32 or know that it even exists from the "see also" section? No. Here, in the wikipedia, our goal is to inform people, not make them look for info. If one knows of FD, they will find FD32 as a section. The article is tiny! It is a stub! We can just put it into the FD article, where it will grow a lot more and then do a section split. I think that that would be the best for everyone wanting to learn and discover something new. Freedom to share 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said in my previous comment, I'm not against merging the article, as long as it doesn't make confusion hinting that FreeDOS and FD32 are "the same thing" or something, namely not "a fork" as mentioned early. Feel free to go for the merge if appropriate for what my opinion's worth. SalvoIsaja 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think better to keep separate, since the projects are separate and have different goals. 69.87.193.26 13:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since nobody has merged the articles, there is no strong consensus for the merge, and the request to merge is pending for more than two months, I'm removing the "mergeto" tag from the FreeDOS-32 page. Moreover the article has been slightly expanded (although using material from the FD32 web site, per GFDL permission), so it may no longer be a stub. SalvoIsaja 09:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NT cmd

Although Microsoft still supplies very basic DOS-like functionality in Windows NT called CMD, it is only useful for a few basic tasks such as making folders or formatting disks as some of the more complex and less-well known DOS commands are not in the program.

Eh? What can't CMD do? I'm puzzled by what this statement is getting at. CMD runs OS/2 processes, W32 command line programs, launches gui programs, and runs a fairly decent DOS 16 subsystem. Alas, if one of those dos programs attempts particular direct disk i/o, it gets its hand slapped. Also, particular dos graphics mode programs don't work—or work oddly—but that's pretty far from "useful for a few basic tasks". EncMstr 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but we need to mention that it is not used that much anymore, i.e. everyone uses the window system. Freedom to share 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this line. It's not integral to the article and it's just plain wrong. CMD is more functional than anything MS-DOS ever did, and people use it every day for very advanced tasks. SchmuckyTheCat 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the DOS 16 subsystem is no available on Windows x64... Nil Einne 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FreeDOS on Dell n-Series

Can anyone verify that FreeDOS is installed on the computer by Dell. I think it is not installed, but included, due to Microsoft licensing, but am not sure. Just want to make sure before any changes are made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.196.176 (talk • contribs) .

• Check this link: <http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/nseries?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=mn>. Dell says it does not install it but does not explain why. Starnestommy 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove "soon"?

This paragraph under "History" contrdicts itself:

The FreeDOS project began June 26, 1994, when Microsoft announced it would no longer sell nor support MS-DOS. Jim Hall then posted a manifesto proposing the development of an open-source replacement. Within a few weeks, other programmers including Pat Villani and Tim Norman joined the project. A kernel, the command.com command line interpreter (shell) and core utilities were soon created by pooling code they had written or found available. Version 1.0 was released on September 3, 2006.

OK, I wouldn't call 12 years soon. Obviously, this paragraph needs cleaning up, but I don't know what the facts are, so I can't do it. 163.192.21.44 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted differently:

• The project began...
• Within a few weeks...
• A kernel ... and core utilites were soon created...

-STOP-

• The final version 1.0 was released in 2006.

Maybe a newline would have been helpful... --Andreas (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

Hello!

I changed the screenshot from BOO1.png to FreeDOS-1.0-LiveCD-Boot.png. Is everybody happy with that? If not, please revert and state why...

Cheers, Andreas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside of x86

Will FreeDOS be ported to architecture outside of x86 soon?

Because I'd like to run some old DOS games on an old Power Mac soon. --Roadstaa (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Try MacBOCHS or PCx. Assuming by powermac you mean runs OS 9. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't altering the programming code of an x86 operating system to run on PowerPC assembly language give a more straightforward performance on DOS? --Roadstaa (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange ideas you have... My understanding of this is that you probably could port FreeDOS to a different architecture, as with almost all operating systems. But like Windows NT for PowerPC you would also need the applications to be ported to PowerPC. What will you do with a DOS that runs natively on PPC with no original DOS applications running on it? Greetings! ‣Andreas•⚖ 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: use DOSBox ‣Andreas•⚖ 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe DOSBox is FreeDOS's biggest rival. Anyway, I kinda figured that programs ported to operating systems are more dependent on the operating system than they are on the archetecture, but I never knew that DOS programs would have partial dependence directly on x86 code. I kinda think minor patches to the holes of DOS that allow that could enable normal DOS programs to run on a 68k or PowerPC mac; or maybe a SPARC system by Sun Microsystems. --Roadstaa (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DOSBox is an emulator, whereas FreeDOS is an operating system.

You'd use DOSBox to emulate DOS on a modern PC. You'd use FreeDOS to run a reconstruction system based on a 286/386/486/586 CPU.

They occupy separate niches on the market, and as such cannot be competing with each other. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And every program, be it a DOS, a Windows or a Mac OS application, is architecture dependant. A Win32 application for x86 can only run on x86. One for PowerPC can only run on PowerPC. This is even true for x64, which we know is x86 compatible (so x86 programs can run on x64, but not versi-versa).

Mac OS X solved this problem with so call universal binaries, that include machine code for both PowerPC and x86. For native PowerPC applications Mac OS X utilitzes a build-in emulation layer, which results in slower execution speed.

You mixed up an interpreter and a program. The only architecture independent binaries I know of are Java binaries, and they need an interpreter for the architecture they are running on. ‣Andreas•⚖ 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I keep getting emails claiming that people have problems with onboard sound cards on modern PCs when running FreeDOS. Doesn't legacy mode emulate Sound Blaster on onboard sound cards? --Roadstaa (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Which legacy mode? You'll still need DOS drivers. But that still doesn't cover most applications/games since most programmers dicided to write to the SB directly. I don't think that any legacy mode can provide this 100% compatibility.

It may help with Windows though. But what do I know – I rather use the original (SoundBlaster 16 ASP ISA card)... ‣Andreas•⚖ 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On Track link incorrect

The link to OnTrack is definitely incorrect since it refers to a railroad company. The latter page itself says:

This page is about the New York commuter train line. For the New Zealand company, see ONTRACK.

But that's another railroad company. The link should refer to a driver mounted on some hard disks (I had one, and I remember!) But there does not even seem (or is there and I'm too dumb to find it?) to be an appropriate page for it, nor a good disambiguation page for "ontrack." --Blazar.writeto() 09:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I created Ontrack (disambiguation) which should help. —EncMstr (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

3.5 inch Floppy or 5.25 inch Floppy?

The main article refers to FreeDOS being available on cd, and then makes numerous references to its being available on a Floppy.

Does it make a difference if it is a 3.5 inch Floppy, or a 5.25 inch Floppy? Will it fit on either of them? 216.99.198.135 (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can make FreeDos boot off a 360KB 5.25 inch floppy or 3.5 inch floppy. 1.2MB 5.25 inch floppy should also work but I haven't tried it. See http://www.xs4all.nl/~rjoris/freedos.html for examples. Not my webpage. Larger capacity floppies permit inclusion of more utilities and are more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.215.99 (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You can also convert the image to 2.88MB, if you find a tool for that. --MrBurns (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary sentence

Why is the following sentence in the introduction?

The original release date was planned for July 28, 2006.

Can it be removed? This seems like irrelevant information now that version 1.0 has been out for awhile. —Voidxor (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed it while cleaning up the article. Don't forget that you can always be WP:BOLD and fix things yourself :-) rCX (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FreeDOS in Reactos

The CMD.EXE and EDIT.EXE in reactos are recompiles of freeDOS command.com and edit.com.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedos guis

There should be a list of gui's for freedos. Such as doscore which is being developed beside a unix version of itsself.http://www.doscore.net/

and various other guis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a section I wrote awhile back. We can put it back in if it's updated

Several FreeDOS compatible GUIs exist, but few are still maintained. OpenGEM, a 16-bit GUI based on Digital Research's Graphical Environment Manager (GEM) is in active development. SEAL, a 32-bit GUI, has not been updated since 2003. Qube, a multiplatform and multitasking desktop environment, is no longer being developed. Windows 3.1 has also been installed in FreeDOS.

rCX (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also: http://www.doscore.net/ and I think they are working on 2 dos guis as well as A custom dos/unix kernel. I think more or less they are updating the Orion gui as well as making a seal v 3. And the Ikongui is for dos as well I think. Of course the Gem gui and it's descendants are relevant but and other dos guis currently under development are relevant. Perhaps there signifigants lapses after they are no longer developed actively if they never make a splash (if they never reach a mass audience) but then again thats debatable. But whatis going on currently is farely historically relevant. Its possible that The Ikongui could eventually lead the masses back to dos use or freegem could do the same somewhere down the line in it's development. It is something to think about to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Win 9x

Win 9x doesn't use MS-DOS 7.x/8.0 only as a bootloader, it also supports real mode DOS, bei eighter pressing F8 at boot an selecting "comamnd prompt only" or adding the line BootGUI=0 to MSDOS.SYS or by Start -> Shut Down -> Restart in MS-DOS Mode. --MrBurns (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Insight Debugger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insight Debugger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insight Debugger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)