posted January 03, 2007 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

I've always been drawn towards highly functional but minimalist systems.

---

I wouldn't probably worry about DRDOS too much, after all, how much more can you add to an already antiquated OS?

posted January 03, 2007 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank Crowder:
freedos would be my choice if moving to DOS was something I wanted to do.

---

Isn't that kind of like saying "Lighting a stick of dynamite in my mouth would be my choice if killing myself was something I wanted to do."?

Sometimes a bad idea is simply a bad idea.

posted January 03, 2007 08:51 PM            

The DRDOS website mentions version 7.03, which is the same version it had in 2001, when I used it (right for highly functional but minimalist systems), so I don't think DRDOS is being developed anymore.

I remember it passed through several companies, Caldera, Lineo, maybe other ones, maybe they are now just trying to squeeze some money out of a corpse, if there it wasn't any new version in so many years. They also seem to sell the source code now.

posted January 03, 2007 09:21 PM            

I created programs in the DOS 3.xx days. I have a few programs that run on windows 98/me/2k/xp that
would run just fine on an old dos systems using VESA or even SVGA,
but I ported them to windows as most people want to run other
programs at the same time and to try to stay current. your cell phone
has a bigger, faster computer in it then what is needed to run DOS.

out of the choices for DOS (msdos,freedos,drdos,...) I would use freedos
for the simple fact that you can get the source code. if you can get it
for drdos too, then I would have to look at the two and see if one had
something better then the other, task switching!!! if needed.

why would anyone want to use DOS of any version I would just be guessing, why
would anyone want to switch to Vista or XP form Linux or the other way?

He ask about DrDos and I thought that FreeDOS included source code and that he
may want to look at it.

DOS may need a 'Mobility Chair' to get around, but its not dead yet!

posted January 03, 2007 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

DOS may need a 'Mobility Chair' to get around, but its not dead yet!

---

quote:

---

...and this without even knowing which kind of product is it, which application field is it for, or other irrelevant info like those.

---

posted January 04, 2007 12:26 AM            

It's a new year, and those are old arguments. Save yourself some
time and search out some of the archives and see what's been said
before, over and over again, I might add.

Sorry. But you ever notice how many times we go through the same
type of discussions because people are too lazy to do a search and
see what has been discussed before? Maybe it doesn't occur to them
to do a bit of research that way, but I sometimes think the idea is
to try and stur up another controversy and create a thread that
runs on for pages with no final concensus.

posted January 04, 2007 02:41 AM            

freedos + freedos32 can even run some windows console programs!
seal is a graphic interface 'like windows' that runs on freedos32 http://www.opus.co.tt/dave/program.htm is a site for all things dos
related that even has links to USB drivers for DOS.

------------------
Frank H. Crowder
RoxBox, Inc.

posted January 04, 2007 07:19 AM            

quote:

---

Chris stated pretty clearly that his reason was not application related, but the desire to not run on a Microsoft OS.

---

Chris, if you are thinking to port your program to PB/DOS, what I can tell you is that PB/DOS always worked very very well on DR-DOS for me: fast, rock solid, no problems to get 32 MB of EMS instead of 16 with its EMS driver (I had some problems with some buggy MS-DOS EMS drivers instead).

However if you are worried that DR-DOS shows no activity since 2004, I'd be careful with DR-DOS, I'd double check, because it doesn't seem to be kept updated at all since long time. FreeDOS instead seems very active.

posted January 04, 2007 08:59 AM            

quote:

---

Do we really have to argue this matter though from beginning to end again?

---

posted January 04, 2007 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Do we really have to argue this matter though from beginning to end again?

---

The steady water will grind the stone.

Knuth

posted January 04, 2007 12:55 PM            

Just try banging the new Windows CE units with a branch once.
Here is the full text of an email I just received today in my
inbox from one of our foresters using one of my prototype
programs on one of the new Windows CE units...

Fred, I just remembered that you said you had some data
recorders. The ones we have (windows CE) don’t have silvah. We
could use a couple more data recorders that can do silvah plots
for us and our forest tech’s. I am not sure if the touch screen
(new units you gave us to try) is the best way to tally timber…
With the new units any branch can put the curser somewhere you
don’t want or put you in another program with the touch of a
twig. You get use to typing in trees with out looking at the
data recorder and then you look down and your on tree number
267 when you should be on 323 and you just typed over ten trees….

End quote. I firmly believe there are unique situations such as
ours here where DOS is infinitely better suited to the particular
use and app than Windows.

With these new Windows CE systems I would even have tried
reproducing my particular data collection programs as 32 bit
console programs, but that functionality was not incorporated
in Windows CE, at least none of the many versions of it with
which I'm familiar. The manufacturer of the units we use,
Juniper Systems of Colorado, have told me they were considering
using Linux on the systems but opted out of it.

So i'm trying my best to come up with Windows programs that
compare with the functionality of my old DOS programs and I'm
having one miserable hard time, not the least of which I've gotta
use C to write the programs. All sorts of user iterface issues
are involved, one of which was mentioned above in the quote about
the touch screen. Other issues involve the ease with which fixed
field size data entry occurred with DOS. If you knew a
particular field was always three digits it was easy to program
it to jump to the next field after counting three keystrokes
and validating the feld. Well, you can do that in Windows, true.
Have you ever tried that with grids however in Windows? I could go on,
but respecting Donald's wishes I'll quit here and get back to
work.

...guess you've got me too wound up to stop! And when the UPS
man delivers supplies at our office occasionally I'll sign for
them. And what I'll sign on is a data recorder running an old
DOS like interface - using a touchscreen however, to allow
signing.

------------------
Fred
"fharris"+Chr$(64)+"evenlink"+Chr$(46)+"com"