Operating Systems > Not Quite Mainstream OSes

FreeDOS 1.0 soon :)

<< < (2/3) > >>

cymon:
But you can't talk about window$$$$$$$$ 3.1 here because Microsoft is teh evilzorz.

davidnix71:
Some of the non-M$ virtual OS's come with FreeDOS so you don't have to have a floppy to begin with. It saves time. If you can partition and setup a virtual hd before loading Linux that sometimes makes it easier as well.

I couldn't get the install version of FreeBeOS to load in VPC 6.1. It said there was no harddrive. The live version didn't see it either, but it ran okay without it.

Emulating Windoze 3.11 isn't necessarily bad. The 16 bit version with 16-bit IE 5.5 is still usable. Even a 16MB thumb drive could boot and run an OS that small.

mobrien_12:
Win 3.1 is a sort of acid test for ultra DOS compatibility.

But I don't think it's necessarily good criterion for FreeDOS. MS put a lot of hidden crap in Win3.1.


Nobody is going to want to run Win3.1x under FreeDOS.  If they want to run that MS junk, they will run it under MS DOS or IBM PC dos, or MAYBE DR DOS.

Have you actually tried to run Win3.1x under DR-DOS?  I have.  Theres compatible and there's compatible.  It's not real simple and there are some subtle problems.

No, I think most people would be satified if it just ran most DOS stuff.

Calum:
perhaps i am "nobody" then. opinions aside, i do think windows 3.11 compatibility should be their 1.0 benchmark. yes i have run windows over freedos, BUT you have to use MS dos to get it working properly, because DR-DOS installs properly for windows, only when windows is already installed! i had to install ms dos, then ms windows, then install dr dos, telling it where windows was (i think) then just deletd the MSDOS directory. then i also copied a bunch of stuff over from freeDOS because they have a bunch of linux style commands like ls that i simply couldn't get my head around not having. i also installed vim and freemacs i think. in fact come to think of it i was trying my best to get my windows installation to be as much like a linux as possible, that was the experiment. but on a computer with 75MHz CPU and only a couple of hundred MB HDD, there's no modern linux you can install (though i did dual boot it (well, used loadlin) with the brilliant basiclinux, not sure if it's still alive, or still brilliant though) and i think freeDOS and MSwindows (with the calmira 2 UI over the top of it) would be the perfect combination for a free-as-it's-going-to-get MS windows OS. if i could have got the CD player to recognise, and maybe some sort of networking then it really would have been a contender, especially if it had been freeDOS instead of DR DOS, but there you go, perhaps in another fourteen years, eh?

mobrien_12:
OK... I'm wrong, somebody does want to do it. :)

I think the networking stuff has well improved... I downloaded their latest live boot iso. Will check it out in 2 weeks when I have time to give it a good tryout.

Anyway, I know they have worked pretty hard to get Free GUI's working like Free/OpenGEM and Seal (although SEAL is dead now :( ).  

I'm willing to have a disagreement of opinions... my feelings is that a functional DOS is good enough for a 1.0, especially for a project that's been   working for so long.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page