On 11/19/2020 11:39 AM, zz zz wrote:
hi
> DOS is based on 8086 architecture, with 1MB of RAM
Wasn't protected mode supposed to extend that? Anyways, I'm running
on a 48MB machine and even DSL and tinycore had problems with such a
low amount, which is somewhat disturbing for the preservation of
technology.
But DOS at its core is a 16bit OS, designed to run on a very specific
CPU with a 20bit address bus, hence a 1MB address limit. And for more
than a decade, people were able to create excellent software just fine.
> and at times rather finicky ways to extended this amount for
application running on top of DOS.
what would be the maximum? 32 bits can address 4GB, 16 bits would be
64KB (which is definetely NOT enough for everyone :D) so it's already
kind of a hack to have anything in between..
DOS memory manager historically limit the amount of RAM via EMM/EMS to
32 or 64MB of RAM. That ought to be enough for anyone really interested
in programming for DOS.
>Sorry, I am programming for far too long, in a lot of different
programming languages, as to be buying into this nonsense.
Time can be a good OR a bad thing but, it does not address the argument.
> Well, I might actually have found a reasonably priced one and with a
little bit of luck, I might have have one by Christmas.
Cool! x86 is rather surprising (to me) for a SBC as ARMv8 and beyond
will be all the rage going forward (got a little one here as well
:)).. so the emulation route would probably be needed most of the time.
> Sorry, but there are enough programming languages around for use
with DOS, there is no need to "even more", specially not any of those
that have become self-serving solutions that only solve issues that
nobody has...
I agree with you here, which is why I've been (jokingly) writing
"even" before the "more" ever since I suggested that. But skimming the
mailing list I saw some people expressed that want, so my suggestion
was a quick way to get them that without any additional work, like I
said, C is probably a better target, it also has a bunch of those
compilers and lower resistance of course.
Well,...
The biggest problem that I see with/for FreeDOS is the number of people
actually still interested in working with/for (Free)DOS. That number has
always been limited, but has gotten even smaller over the years. Beside
Jim, who started this, I might actually now be the longest surviving
member here, being more or less active since late '95 or early '96. A
lot of people from the early years have come and gone, for various
reasons. But what has become a slow but seemingly steady stream is that
there are new people showing up once in a while, with a whole plethora
of grand ideas, that very quickly end up nowhere. As it seems, mostly
because the vast majority of those doesn't understand what DOS is. And
that seems to be part of the overall trend, where people are coming up
with solutions for issues that people pretend to have in order to solve
problems that nobody has...
Ralf
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
