Mail Archives: opendos/2000/10/30/10:45:22
OK, but why? It seems to me that the freedos hasn't, likewise gone very far
recently, or is that connected to the 32-bit projects?
It's sort of seems to me that there's only a little space to develope
any further in dos and then what would come next would be versions that
would be not compatible with prior versions of dos? If that becomes the
case then in my own way of thinking you might as well as already noted just
migrate to linux and keep whatever version of the 16-bit dos you care for as
a historical point, or do those programs you cannot believe that you cannot
live without in dos and have that system as bug-free as is possible while
growing with linux.
In that case I still wonder if it's the Pc-dos which has then emerged as
the most stable and fuller featured dos that ever has been developed and
generally understanding that this is it for 16-bit dos, no real other places
to go with it!
That's what it is seeming like to me.
Mark
On 2000-10-30 opendos AT delorie DOT com said:
>Hi!
>> However does
>>anyone here still use DrDOS-Opendos-... or am I only one left?
>No, I am using Dr-DOS 7.03!! Only for internet I have to use windows
>(because I have a windows isdn card :(). If I would have a DOS isdn
>card, I would need windows only for Napster :)))
>>What about
>>IBM's PC-dos 2000? You can still buy it from IBM even in floppy I
>>believe! Does anyone use it and how does it compare to DrDOS #703?
>Has it also got a
>>bootloader which automatically dectects W95-or 98? Is it more
>>stable with "no" emm386 errors? Do you know of a "list" for it's
>users?
>Yes, it is also under developement. But I would use FreeDOS instead
>and would download a free memory manager (that's the only thing i
>am missing), a dpmi server and a taskmanager (like Desqview 2.8).
>BTW: A new kernel will be released in the next days ( www.freedos.
>org ).
>bye, florian
>www.drdos.org
>www.seal.de.vu
- Raw text -