bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
139 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Rugxulo
Hi,

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Mateusz Viste <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:24:56 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> What disassembler are you using here? I erroneously thought it was NDISASM.
>
> I don't use ndisasm for a very trivial reason - I am unable to redirect
> its output to a file, so I don't really know how other people use it

It worked fine (redirecting) for me yesterday! I can't imagine why it
wouldn't work for you.

> I didn't figure out any quick and easy workaround (again, too stupid).

Um, excuse me, but he called you "lazy" and "clueless", not "stupid".
I guess we should add "forgetful".   ;-))  j/k

But I'll point to this anyways, "redir", just for a general tip (in
rare case you didn't already know):

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/utils/utils_7.html

Oh, before I forget, are you perhaps invoking NDISASM via some .BAT?
Of course a .BAT doesn't really redirect (under FreeCOM) without
kludge, e.g. "%COMSPEC% /c".

> The output I pasted before was copied from the NASM listing (-l).

Hmmm, then NASM is being a bit too tricky for its own good.

I do (very naively!) wonder whether "warning: 8086 conditional jump
extended" would be appropriate. Actually, having "[386]" (etc) in
NDISASM output would be nice. (The only workarounds for that are BIEW
and QVIEW, IIRC both of which color-code various instructions. Not
sure about various debuggers off the top of my head.)

> And although I do look at the listing carefully, I do not bother decoding the
> opcodes by hand (too lazy!),

Maybe you should use Lazy Assembler (LZASM)?!    :-P      Nah, it
needs a separate linker, even for .COM (bah, too slow, we're too
lazy!).

> I assume that the assembler knows how to
> encode mnemonics into opcodes - that's his job after all, not mine.
> Ultimately, whether the code is assembled into a "long, 5-byte form of
> jump" or "two separate instructions that emulate a jump" is irrelevant to
> me - in both cases it's still 5 bytes, that all I need to know.

I can't even honestly complain, it's indeed a "feature", not a bug!
Not mandatory but certainly nice to have.

>> The simple answer is that code size is rarely as important as programmer
>> convenience.
>
> Maybe. But why bother doing assembly then, if not for the control over
> what machine code is generated at the end?

I was trying to imagine thinking like them, not speaking for myself. I
personally like size optimizations in assembly (obviously??). E.g.
"add si,2" is three bytes but (times 2) "inc si" is only two! But you
won't see a lot of programs that actively try to save such few bytes.
Nobody cares. (Well, most other people!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Bret
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
> I double-checked, latest NDISASM still decodes as two separate instructions.

A disassembler would not report two separate instructions unless the actual compiled code had two separate instructions.  Every assembler/compiler I know of does little "tricks" to make the programmer's job a little easier (basically, changes subtle/minor things behind your back).  They also all seem to do different "tricks" (even in different versions of the same assembler/compiler), so even in ASM you're not really 100% in control of the resulting code.  In ASM you're much more in control than you are in any high-level language, though.
 
> The simple answer is that code size is rarely as important as programmer convenience.

There are really several different major things that you must balance: program size, memory footprint, speed, and maintainability.  "Programmer convenience" is just a subset of maintainability, which also includes things like program structure, language/compiler/assembler/libraries chosen, documentation, and code commenting.  Which of the items has the highest precedence depends on circumstances and goals at the time.  TSR's and device drivers, e.g., are very different than foreground programs -- memory footprint really matters (a lot) in TSR's and device drivers, though not necessarily so much in foreground programs (at least not in all foreground programs).

It also depends on your intended target audience/hardware.  Modern CPU's also do all kinds of "tricks" to increase speed (caching, pipelining, branch prediction, virtual machines/CPU's/memory, memory alignment issues, etc.), so code that is faster on a real 8086/8088 CPU may actually be (relatively) slower in a different environment.  Looking up clock-cycles-per-CPU-instruction is a guideline, but not the final answer as to how fast something really is.  Smaller size tends to equate to faster speed, though that's not absolute.  It is true that a smaller memory footprint is more likely to remain in the CPU cache(s) (at least on CPU's that have caches and have them enabled), so a smaller memory footprint always increases speed (or at least the likelihood of speed) in that sense.

 
--
Bret Johnson
 
There is only one place in the universe where 0+0=1.  That is in the mind of an evolutionist.
____________________________________________________________
'Erin' From Happy Days Looks Like Now Is Insane
trend-chaser.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58ee56e68d39656e6565bst03vuc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Mateusz Viste-5
In reply to this post by Rugxulo
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:39:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> It worked fine (redirecting) for me yesterday! I can't imagine why it
> wouldn't work for you.
>
> Oh, before I forget, are you perhaps invoking NDISASM via some .BAT?
> Of course a .BAT doesn't really redirect (under FreeCOM) without kludge,
> e.g. "%COMSPEC% /c".

Ha, yes - you nailed it, Rugxulo. Indeed I was calling ndisasm from
within a sneaky ndisasm.bat file (auto-generated by FDNPKG inside my
PATH). As said before, I didn't really investigate the problem (for a
reason that should be obvious by now) - saw it doesn't work out of the
box, went to the "-l" nasm listing, done. But thanks to you the reason is
clear now. It's at least the second time this "FDNPKG generates BAT
files" thing bites me. I should definitively address this problem
eventually. I have to say however that I prefer the "-l" listing anyway,
because it preserves the comments (even though it lies a little bit
sometimes on the JZ thing).

> Maybe you should use Lazy Assembler (LZASM)?!

Didn't know that one (too lazy to google it out), but it does sound
extremely well suited to me!

cheers,
Mateusz


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Karen Lewellen-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
From: "Bret Johnson" <[hidden email]>

> I double-checked, latest NDISASM still decodes as two separate instructions.

A disassembler would not report two separate instructions unless the actual
compiled code had two separate instructions.  Every assembler/compiler I know
of does little "tricks" to make the programmer's job a little easier
(basically, changes subtle/minor things behind your back).  They also all seem
to do different "tricks" (even in different versions of the same
assembler/compiler), so even in ASM you're not really 100% in control of the
resulting code.  In ASM you're much more in control than you are in any
high-level language, though.

> The simple answer is that code size is rarely as important as programmer
convenience.

There are really several different major things that you must balance: program
size, memory footprint, speed, and maintainability.  "Programmer convenience"
is just a subset of maintainability, which also includes things like program
structure, language/compiler/assembler/libraries chosen, documentation, and
code commenting.  Which of the items has the highest precedence depends on
circumstances and goals at the time.  TSR's and device drivers, e.g., are very
different than foreground programs -- memory footprint really matters (a lot)
in TSR's and device drivers, though not necessarily so much in foreground
programs (at least not in all foreground programs).

It also depends on your intended target audience/hardware.  Modern CPU's also
do all kinds of "tricks" to increase speed (caching, pipelining, branch
prediction, virtual machines/CPU's/memory, memory alignment issues, etc.), so
code that is faster on a real 8086/8088 CPU may actually be (relatively) slower
in a different environment.  Looking up clock-cycles-per-CPU-instruction is a
guideline, but not the final answer as to how fast something really is.
Smaller size tends to equate to faster speed, though that's not absolute.  It
is true that a smaller memory footprint is more likely to remain in the CPU
cache(s) (at least on CPU's that have caches and have them enabled), so a
smaller memory footprint always increases speed (or at least the likelihood of
speed) in that sense.


--
Bret Johnson

There is only one place in the universe where 0+0=1.  That is in the mind of an
evolutionist.
____________________________________________________________
'Erin' From Happy Days Looks Like Now Is Insane
trend-chaser.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58ee56e68d39656e6565bst03vuc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--- Internet Rex 2.29
 * Origin: capcity2.synchro.net - 502/875-8938 (276:10/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux ListGate 1.3
 *  Capitol City Online - Frankfort, KY - telnet://capitolcityonline.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Karen Lewellen-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
From: Mateusz Viste <[hidden email]>

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:39:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> It worked fine (redirecting) for me yesterday! I can't imagine why it
> wouldn't work for you.
>
> Oh, before I forget, are you perhaps invoking NDISASM via some .BAT?
> Of course a .BAT doesn't really redirect (under FreeCOM) without kludge,
> e.g. "%COMSPEC% /c".

Ha, yes - you nailed it, Rugxulo. Indeed I was calling ndisasm from
within a sneaky ndisasm.bat file (auto-generated by FDNPKG inside my
PATH). As said before, I didn't really investigate the problem (for a
reason that should be obvious by now) - saw it doesn't work out of the
box, went to the "-l" nasm listing, done. But thanks to you the reason is
clear now. It's at least the second time this "FDNPKG generates BAT
files" thing bites me. I should definitively address this problem
eventually. I have to say however that I prefer the "-l" listing anyway,
because it preserves the comments (even though it lies a little bit
sometimes on the JZ thing).

> Maybe you should use Lazy Assembler (LZASM)?!

Didn't know that one (too lazy to google it out), but it does sound
extremely well suited to me!

cheers,
Mateusz


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--- Internet Rex 2.29
 * Origin: capcity2.synchro.net - 502/875-8938 (276:10/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux ListGate 1.3
 *  Capitol City Online - Frankfort, KY - telnet://capitolcityonline.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Mateusz Viste-5
In reply to this post by Dale E Sterner
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:37:44 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
> Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for dos?
> Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will.

I don't think there is such thing as a "802.11 client" - it only depends
whether or not the given wifi card has a driver for DOS.

I know that there are (old) wifi network cards with DOS compatibility,
but these are usually restricted to WEP encryption, which is very weak.

A probably better solution (that I use myself) is too use a classic
Ethernet network card with DOS, and hook it to some wifi AP in bridge
mode. When considering what network card to use, I like to compare the
memory footprint of its packet packet driver. For example the packet
driver of an RTL8139 consumes 26K of RAM, while the packet driver of a
3C590 needs only 11K.

Mateusz


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Dale E Sterner
I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini
with a FREEDOS os installed. All the HP minis that
I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built in. That would
mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't
mention wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen
has it.


cheers
DS



On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Mateusz Viste
<[hidden email]> writes:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:37:44 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
> > Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for
> dos?
> > Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will.
>
> I don't think there is such thing as a "802.11 client" - it only
> depends
> whether or not the given wifi card has a driver for DOS.
>
> I know that there are (old) wifi network cards with DOS
> compatibility,
> but these are usually restricted to WEP encryption, which is very
> weak.
>
> A probably better solution (that I use myself) is too use a classic
> Ethernet network card with DOS, and hook it to some wifi AP in
> bridge
> mode. When considering what network card to use, I like to compare
> the
> memory footprint of its packet packet driver. For example the packet
>
> driver of an RTL8139 consumes 26K of RAM, while the packet driver of
> a
> 3C590 needs only 11K.
>
> Mateusz
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>


******************************************************>>>>
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>

____________________________________________________________
Why Your City Doctors No Longer Prescribe Metformin
Vibrant Health Network
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58f77e9be78bc7e9b1e3ast01duc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS

Mateusz Viste-5
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:14:21 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
> I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini with a FREEDOS os
> installed. All the HP minis that I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built
> in. That would mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't mention
> wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen has it.

If you're really considering this, then I'd recommend asking the seller
first to confirm that the 802.11 actually works under FreeDOS. Most of
the time, "FreeDOS" PCs are not meant to be usable, but just show that
"something boots", before reinstalling a modern OS.

Mateusz





> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Mateusz Viste
> <[hidden email]> writes:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:37:44 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
>> > Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for
>> dos?
>> > Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will.
>>
>> I don't think there is such thing as a "802.11 client" - it only
>> depends whether or not the given wifi card has a driver for DOS.
>>
>> I know that there are (old) wifi network cards with DOS compatibility,
>> but these are usually restricted to WEP encryption, which is very weak.
>>
>> A probably better solution (that I use myself) is too use a classic
>> Ethernet network card with DOS, and hook it to some wifi AP in bridge
>> mode. When considering what network card to use, I like to compare the
>> memory footprint of its packet packet driver. For example the packet
>>
>> driver of an RTL8139 consumes 26K of RAM, while the packet driver of a
>> 3C590 needs only 11K.
>>
>> Mateusz
>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

dmccunney
In reply to this post by Dale E Sterner
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini
> with a FREEDOS os installed. All the HP minis that
> I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built in. That would
> mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't
> mention wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen
> has it.

The machine may have the *hardware*.  Whether the hardware will be
*usable* will depend on software.

MSDOS was written back before Wifi and Bluetooth *existed*.  FreeDOS
tries to be compatible with MSDOS, which means "support for what
existed when MSDOS was current."

I would *not* expect Wifi or Bluetooth to be usable on the machine in
FreeDOS, because the drivers don't exist.  If you want to use Wifi or
Bluetooth on that hardware, you'll need to install another OS that
supports them.  (Depending on exactly which HP mini model it is, there
might be a flavor of Linux that can do it.)
______
Dennis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Dale E Sterner
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
Maybe the people who have produced the mini
also wrote some software to make it useful.
I like DOS I hope it moves foreward. Windows
is so single PC oriented. I've tried moving
windows to a twin PC - same everything and it
somehow knew it was different and didn't
want to run. DOS has no such problems.
DOS finds its legs and wants to run.


cheers
DS


On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:07:35 -0400 dmccunney <[hidden email]>
writes:

> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dale E Sterner
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini
> > with a FREEDOS os installed. All the HP minis that
> > I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built in. That would
> > mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't
> > mention wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen
> > has it.
>
> The machine may have the *hardware*.  Whether the hardware will be
> *usable* will depend on software.
>
> MSDOS was written back before Wifi and Bluetooth *existed*.  FreeDOS
> tries to be compatible with MSDOS, which means "support for what
> existed when MSDOS was current."
>
> I would *not* expect Wifi or Bluetooth to be usable on the machine
> in
> FreeDOS, because the drivers don't exist.  If you want to use Wifi
> or
> Bluetooth on that hardware, you'll need to install another OS that
> supports them.  (Depending on exactly which HP mini model it is,
> there
> might be a flavor of Linux that can do it.)
> ______
> Dennis
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>


******************************************************>>>>
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>

____________________________________________________________
The Easiest Way To Shed Deep Fat?
3 Harmful Foods
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58f7bb5e84cae3b5e7b11st02duc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Ulrich Hansen-2
Several years ago I wrote everything I could find out about DOS and Wifi here:


If anybody finds out more about it, please give some feedback...


On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:07:35 -0400 dmccunney <[hidden email]>
writes:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dale E Sterner
<[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini
with a FREEDOS os installed. All the HP minis that
I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built in. That would
mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't
mention wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen
has it.

The machine may have the *hardware*.  Whether the hardware will be
*usable* will depend on software.

MSDOS was written back before Wifi and Bluetooth *existed*.  FreeDOS
tries to be compatible with MSDOS, which means "support for what
existed when MSDOS was current."

I would *not* expect Wifi or Bluetooth to be usable on the machine
in
FreeDOS, because the drivers don't exist.  If you want to use Wifi
or
Bluetooth on that hardware, you'll need to install another OS that
supports them.  (Depending on exactly which HP mini model it is,
there
might be a flavor of Linux that can do it.)
______
Dennis


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



******************************************************>>>>
From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>

____________________________________________________________
The Easiest Way To Shed Deep Fat?
3 Harmful Foods
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58f7bb5e84cae3b5e7b11st02duc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Dale E Sterner
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
With windows if your PC dies and you want to move
to a dupicate and keep running - your out of luck.
Windows ability to detect small changes is amazing -
it just wants to stop. Win 7 is such a pain to
deal with I think even DOS could beat it.
Every time I install new software it wants to be
reauthenticated.

cheers
DS


On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:57:35 -0400 dmccunney <[hidden email]>
writes:

> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe the people who have produced the mini
> > also wrote some software to make it useful.
>
> Sorry, but that's wishful thinking.  The HP mini wasn't issued as a
> DOS machine.  FreeDOS was an after the fact addition on the one you
> saw, not original equipment.
>
> > I like DOS I hope it moves foreward.
>
> It won't.  What will move it?  What you would like to see will
> require
> time and effort by highly skilled programmers.  The folks who *can*
> do
> what you want expect to be *paid* for their work.  Who will pay
> them,
> and why?  There hasn't been a paying market for DOS and DOS software
> for decades.
>
> > Windows is so single PC oriented. I've tried moving
> > windows to a twin PC - same everything and it
> > somehow knew it was different and didn't
> > want to run.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "twin PC".  But Windows is licensed to
> a
> single PC.   Want to run it on the second PC?  Get another copy of
> Windows with a different license key..
>
> One reason for using Linux is that it doesn't care, and you can
> install it from the same distribution media on multiple machines.
>
> > DOS has no such problems. DOS finds its legs and wants to run.
>
> And if what you want to do can be done by DOS, you are fine.
> Increasingly, what you might want to do *can't* be done under DOS.
> You have a choice of staying put and forgoing the new stuff, or
> moving
> to a different OS.
> ______
> Dennis
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>


******************************************************>>>>
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>

____________________________________________________________
Police Urge Americans to Carry This With Them at All Times
The Observer
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58f7c59dccd50459d30cbst02duc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

dmccunney
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> With windows if your PC dies and you want to move
> to a dupicate and keep running - your out of luck.

Not really.  Been there, done that.

On my old, built-from components PC, I moved XP several times.  I made
changes to the underlying system and Windows wanted to reauthenticate.

The time before last, online authentication failed, and I wound up
speaking to a Microsoft rep. His concern was solely that I wasn't
trying to run the *same* copy of Windows on more than one machine at a
time.  "Nope.  Same physical machine.  I had a hardware failure and
had to get a new motherboard."  He got me authenticated.

The next time I had to do so, online authentication worked with no
issues - MS had made changes to the online authentication site, and
whatever made it fail before no longer bit.

> Windows ability to detect small changes is amazing -
> it just wants to stop.

Windows has an intimate relationship with the hardware.  It *is* an
OS.  If you *make* hardware changes, it will notice.  Whether it wants
to stop will depend on the hardware you changed.  Video cards, hard
drives, and RAM shouldn't cause a problem.  Motherboard changes will.
As far as Windows is concerned, that's a new machine.

> Win 7 is such a pain to deal with I think even DOS could beat it.

I've run Win7, and can't agree.  I was quite happy with Win7.  These
days, I run Win10, and I'm generally pleased with it.  (I run the Pro
version in both cases.)

It follows the "every *other* release of Windows is decent" pattern.
I avoided Vista like the plague, but was happy with Win7.  I avoided
8.1 but am generally pleased with Win10.

Of course, I have the hardware to properly support it, and know what I'm doing.

The current desktop is a replacement for a failed older one.  The
older one came with Win7, and I upgraded to Win10.  I'd done that on
three laptops with no issues.  The desktop was "new and different
Win10 BSODs - collect the whole set!", and I was.  The new machine is
rock solid and stable, but it's also faster and more powerful
hardware.  My conclusion was that the older machine could run Win7 but
wasn't really up to Win10, even though it would install without
issues.  (One annoying quirk was that it was a quad-core machine but
Win10 only saw two cores.  The Xeon CPU is used wasn't on the
"supported by Win10 list Intel maintains.  The i5-2400 in the new box
is, and Win10 sees and uses all four cores.)

Something like that happened in the Win Vista days.  MS wanted
everyone on Vista, but some of the hardware in the pipeline wasn't
really up to running it.  (Mostly, inadequate video.)  MS created a
new level of certification - Vista Capable - so hardware vendors could
put it on the box.  Jim Allchin, who was SVP in charge of Windows
development at the time, was livid.  He felt, correctly, that the
hardware would not provide a good experience for users and that MS
would get yet another black eye in the marketplace.  MS really should
have waited 6 months for a new generation of hardware that would
properly support Vista, but wanted to make XP go away.

> Every time I install new software it wants to be
> reauthenticated.

Win7?  That never happened here.  Are you sure it got properly
authenticated in the first place?

What new software triggers a request for reauthentication?
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Gregg Eshelman
Microsoft has done such things deliberately. I had a Compaq server with dual slot Xeon CPUs. XP (with a 1-2 CPU license) could be installed but no matter what, was only going to be allowed to use ONE CPU. Manually forcing the multi CPU HAL to install during setup (or after) would make it crash.
Microsoft apparently told Compaq to fix their server BIOSes so that only Server versions of Windows would be allowed to access the full hardware capabilities. So I put 2000 Server on it and got rid of it.

One thing I've been liking about 10 is that just about any Core 2 Duo or dual core AMD AM2 and later can run it pretty well, even with only 2 gig RAM. A socket 939 AMD, even dual core? Not so much. 10 is the first release of Windows to have lower minimum hardware requirements than its predecessor. Just got done putting it on a 2.4Ghz Thinkpad T61 with 4gig (and a BIOS modded to remove hardware whitelist and de-hobble SATA from being limited to version 1 speed), which I'd seriously be thinking about keeping if it had the 1920x1200 instead of 1680x1050 display. Need USB 3 and/or eSATA? Pop in an ExpressCard.

I doubt any previous version of Windows would run well, if at all, on hardware originally released 8~9 years prior.

Put Classic Shell on, turn off all the stuff that phones home, set the window titlebars to a color instead of white (which Firefox ignores) and it's good to go.

If you've ever done anything with Windows 1.0 you should notice some similarities between it and the "Modern" UI. They both have non-overlapping tiles with active content, and there's this black bar across the bottom. Square corners everywhere (excepting the round ended buttons Apple sued MS over, square cornered buttons were made to satisfy Apple). Flat, saturated colors with a heavy emphasis on white, magenta, cyan and black. "3D" effects? Not there, just like Windows was through 3.0.

Someone at MS has a bad case of nostalgia for Windows 1.0 running on a CGA monitor.

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 3:09:07 PM MDT, dmccunney <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> With windows if your PC dies and you want to move
> to a dupicate and keep running - your out of luck.

(One annoying quirk was that it was a quad-core machine but
Win10 only saw two cores.  The Xeon CPU is used wasn't on the
"supported by Win10 list Intel maintains.  The i5-2400 in the new box
is, and Win10 sees and uses all four cores.)

Something like that happened in the Win Vista days.  MS wanted
everyone on Vista, but some of the hardware in the pipeline wasn't
really up to running it.  (Mostly, inadequate video.)  MS created a
new level of certification - Vista Capable - so hardware vendors could
put it on the box.  Jim Allchin, who was SVP in charge of Windows
development at the time, was livid.  He felt, correctly, that the
hardware would not provide a good experience for users and that MS
would get yet another black eye in the marketplace.  MS really should
have waited 6 months for a new generation of hardware that would
properly support Vista, but wanted to make XP go away.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

dmccunney
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Gregg Eshelman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Microsoft has done such things deliberately. I had a Compaq server with dual
> slot Xeon CPUs. XP (with a 1-2 CPU license) could be installed but no matter
> what, was only going to be allowed to use ONE CPU. Manually forcing the
> multi CPU HAL to install during setup (or after) would make it crash.
> Microsoft apparently told Compaq to fix their server BIOSes so that only
> Server versions of Windows would be allowed to access the full hardware
> capabilities. So I put 2000 Server on it and got rid of it.

That's not a surprise.  Desktop systems with dual CPUs were uncommon.
The assumption was that a dual-CPU machine was a server, and would
require a server version of Windows.

Finding a dual-CPU system in current days of multiple cores pretty
much requires server hardware.  I dealt professionally with Dell 1u
rack mount servers.  They came with dual CPUs, we installed 32GB RAM
(the max it would take), and spun up VMs under VMWare.  (Mostly
CentOS, but a bit of Windows in the mix.)

With multiple cores per CPU, the *need* to have more than one CPU drops.

> One thing I've been liking about 10 is that just about any Core 2 Duo or
> dual core AMD AM2 and later can run it pretty well, even with only 2 gig
> RAM. A socket 939 AMD, even dual core? Not so much. 10 is the first release
> of Windows to have lower minimum hardware requirements than its predecessor.
> Just got done putting it on a 2.4Ghz Thinkpad T61 with 4gig (and a BIOS
> modded to remove hardware whitelist and de-hobble SATA from being limited to
> version 1 speed), which I'd seriously be thinking about keeping if it had
> the 1920x1200 instead of 1680x1050 display.

I'd be reluctant to try to run Win10 in 2GB, though it's nice you can.
6GB RAM seems to be the sweet spot.  The current desktop has 8GB, but
can be expanded to 32GB by swapping in higher capacity RAM sticks.

> I doubt any previous version of Windows would run well, if at all, on
> hardware originally released 8~9 years prior.

Depends on the Windows flavor.  I have an ancient notebook - a Fujitsu
p2110 from 2001.  It was a pass along from a friend who had upgraded,
but didn't want to just throw it out.

It came to me with Windows XP SP2, and took 8 minutes to just *boot*,
and longer to do anything.

No surprise.  The machine had a 787mhz Transmeta Crusoe CPU (an early
attempt at a power saving design), an IDE4 HD, and a whopping 256 *MB*
of RAM, of which the CPU grabbed 16MB off the top for code morphing.
XP wanted 512MB, minimum, to think about running.

I swapped in a larger HD, repartitioned, reformatted, and installed
Win2K SP4, Ubuntu Linux, Puppy7 Linux, and FreeDOS, multi-booting via
grub2.  Win2K actually ran on the machine more or less acceptably,
especially after I stripped out everything loaded in startup that
*could* be dropped, and turned off the Windows Update service (saving
10MB RAM) because the machine wouldn't *get* updates.

Ubuntu was installed from Minimal CD to get a working CLI system, and
then pick-and-choose via apt-get.  Lxde provided a lightweight GUI.
Large apps were problematic, but that was disk I/O issues caused by
IDE4.  I didn't even try to run Firefox.  Puppy was intended for low
end hardware and ran well, but with the same caveats about big apps.
FreeDOS flew. :-)

It was mostly an exercise to see what performance I could wring out of
ancient hardware *without* throwing money at it.  Actual work happened
elsewhere.  It hasn't even been turned on in months.

> Need USB 3 and/or eSATA? Pop in an ExpressCard.

That's a future upgrade here.  The current machine is USB2, but
there's a four port USB3 card from about $25 that ill plug into the
mini PCI-e slot. Little I currently do really needs USB3, but it's an
easy add down the road.

> Put Classic Shell on, turn off all the stuff that phones home, set the
> window titlebars to a color instead of white (which Firefox ignores) and
> it's good to go.

I run Classic Shell here, and turned off the telemetry as well.

> If you've ever done anything with Windows 1.0 you should notice some
> similarities between it and the "Modern" UI. They both have non-overlapping
> tiles with active content, and there's this black bar across the bottom.
> Square corners everywhere (excepting the round ended buttons Apple sued MS
> over, square cornered buttons were made to satisfy Apple). Flat, saturated
> colors with a heavy emphasis on white, magenta, cyan and black. "3D"
> effects? Not there, just like Windows was through 3.0.
>
> Someone at MS has a bad case of nostalgia for Windows 1.0 running on a CGA
> monitor.

<grin>  I avoided the Metro UI, reasons why.

MS had the same dream that Ubuntu Linux had with their Unity desktop -
the same UI on any device the user ran.  But a UI suited for a tablet
where screen real estate is the scarce resource falls down in a big
monitor.  Win10 brought back the Start Menu, but fixed what wasn't
broken and moved stuff around.  Classic Shell to the rescue.
______
Dennis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS

Karen Lewellen-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
From: Mateusz Viste <[hidden email]>

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:14:21 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
> I see that someone on Ebay is selling an HP mini with a FREEDOS os
> installed. All the HP minis that I've seen have wifi & bluetooth built
> in. That would mean an 802.11 client to do it. The ad doesn't mention
> wifi or bluetooth but every mini that I've seen has it.

If you're really considering this, then I'd recommend asking the seller
first to confirm that the 802.11 actually works under FreeDOS. Most of
the time, "FreeDOS" PCs are not meant to be usable, but just show that
"something boots", before reinstalling a modern OS.

Mateusz





> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Mateusz Viste
> <[hidden email]> writes:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:37:44 -0400, Dale E Sterner wrote:
>> > Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for
>> dos?
>> > Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will.
>>
>> I don't think there is such thing as a "802.11 client" - it only
>> depends whether or not the given wifi card has a driver for DOS.
>>
>> I know that there are (old) wifi network cards with DOS compatibility,
>> but these are usually restricted to WEP encryption, which is very weak.
>>
>> A probably better solution (that I use myself) is too use a classic
>> Ethernet network card with DOS, and hook it to some wifi AP in bridge
>> mode. When considering what network card to use, I like to compare the
>> memory footprint of its packet packet driver. For example the packet
>>
>> driver of an RTL8139 consumes 26K of RAM, while the packet driver of a
>> 3C590 needs only 11K.
>>
>> Mateusz
>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--- Internet Rex 2.29
 * Origin: capcity2.synchro.net - 502/875-8938 (276:10/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux ListGate 1.3
 *  Capitol City Online - Frankfort, KY - telnet://capitolcityonline.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Dale E Sterner
In reply to this post by Mateusz Viste-5
I installed win 7 on a laptop to see what it could do but not to
use it. The laptop doesn't have an internet connection so had
to use the phone method.to  Install it. I installed software that I
bought to
see what it  would do on win 7. Alot of of message boxes came
up giving me 24 hours to reactive or it would shut down forever.
I left the test software on being affraid that if I removed it, it would
do it again. Win 7 is now on my junk software list.



cheers
DS



On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:06:59 -0400 dmccunney <[hidden email]>
writes:

> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > With windows if your PC dies and you want to move
> > to a dupicate and keep running - your out of luck.
>
> Not really.  Been there, done that.
>
> On my old, built-from components PC, I moved XP several times.  I
> made
> changes to the underlying system and Windows wanted to
> reauthenticate.
>
> The time before last, online authentication failed, and I wound up
> speaking to a Microsoft rep. His concern was solely that I wasn't
> trying to run the *same* copy of Windows on more than one machine at
> a
> time.  "Nope.  Same physical machine.  I had a hardware failure and
> had to get a new motherboard."  He got me authenticated.
>
> The next time I had to do so, online authentication worked with no
> issues - MS had made changes to the online authentication site, and
> whatever made it fail before no longer bit.
>
> > Windows ability to detect small changes is amazing -
> > it just wants to stop.
>
> Windows has an intimate relationship with the hardware.  It *is* an
> OS.  If you *make* hardware changes, it will notice.  Whether it
> wants
> to stop will depend on the hardware you changed.  Video cards, hard
> drives, and RAM shouldn't cause a problem.  Motherboard changes
> will.
> As far as Windows is concerned, that's a new machine.
>
> > Win 7 is such a pain to deal with I think even DOS could beat it.
>
> I've run Win7, and can't agree.  I was quite happy with Win7.  These
> days, I run Win10, and I'm generally pleased with it.  (I run the
> Pro
> version in both cases.)
>
> It follows the "every *other* release of Windows is decent" pattern.
> I avoided Vista like the plague, but was happy with Win7.  I avoided
> 8.1 but am generally pleased with Win10.
>
> Of course, I have the hardware to properly support it, and know what
> I'm doing.
>
> The current desktop is a replacement for a failed older one.  The
> older one came with Win7, and I upgraded to Win10.  I'd done that on
> three laptops with no issues.  The desktop was "new and different
> Win10 BSODs - collect the whole set!", and I was.  The new machine
> is
> rock solid and stable, but it's also faster and more powerful
> hardware.  My conclusion was that the older machine could run Win7
> but
> wasn't really up to Win10, even though it would install without
> issues.  (One annoying quirk was that it was a quad-core machine but
> Win10 only saw two cores.  The Xeon CPU is used wasn't on the
> "supported by Win10 list Intel maintains.  The i5-2400 in the new
> box
> is, and Win10 sees and uses all four cores.)
>
> Something like that happened in the Win Vista days.  MS wanted
> everyone on Vista, but some of the hardware in the pipeline wasn't
> really up to running it.  (Mostly, inadequate video.)  MS created a
> new level of certification - Vista Capable - so hardware vendors
> could
> put it on the box.  Jim Allchin, who was SVP in charge of Windows
> development at the time, was livid.  He felt, correctly, that the
> hardware would not provide a good experience for users and that MS
> would get yet another black eye in the marketplace.  MS really
> should
> have waited 6 months for a new generation of hardware that would
> properly support Vista, but wanted to make XP go away.
>
> > Every time I install new software it wants to be
> > reauthenticated.
>
> Win7?  That never happened here.  Are you sure it got properly
> authenticated in the first place?
>
> What new software triggers a request for reauthentication?
> ______
> Dennis
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>


******************************************************>>>>
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>

____________________________________________________________
Police Urge Americans to Carry This With Them at All Times
The Observer
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58f8bb84c98a33b844109st04duc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

dmccunney
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I installed win 7 on a laptop to see what it could do but not to use it.

Where did you get the copy of Win7 you installed?

> The laptop doesn't have an internet connection so had to use the
> phone method.to  Install it.

Are you certain that worked correctly?

> I installed software that I bought to see what it  would do on win 7.

What software was this?

> A lot of of message boxes came up giving me 24 hours to reactive
> or it would shut down forever.

Did those messages come from Win7 or the software you installed?

> I left the test software on being affraid that if I removed it, it would
> do it again. Win 7 is now on my junk software list.

I'm afraid my take from here is pilot error.  When you don't actually
know what you're doing, problems arise.

You got DOS and DOS apps in the old days, got them to where you
wanted, and stopped.  If what you have does what you need, splendid.
If it doesn't, you are looking at stepping beyond DOS.  That will mean
either a flavor of Windows or a flavor of Linux.  Either way, there's
a learning curve you're stuck with, and you need to learn more about
and better understand what your options are.

Proceeding without knowledge is a good way to shoot yourself in *both* feet.

> cheers
> DS
______
Dennis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Rugxulo
Hi,

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I installed win 7 on a laptop to see what it could do but not to use it.
>> I installed software that I bought to see what it  would do on win 7.
>> A lot of of message boxes came up giving me 24 hours to reactive
>> or it would shut down forever.
>
> Did those messages come from Win7 or the software you installed?

Can't you use a RC (release candidate) for a few months? Or is that
not supported any longer?

>> I left the test software on being affraid that if I removed it, it would
>> do it again. Win 7 is now on my junk software list.

In fairness, Win7 doesn't have a lot of life left, so it's not a good
long-term solution. (Vista very recently died, so no more updates or
fixes.)

> You got DOS and DOS apps in the old days, got them to where you
> wanted, and stopped.  If what you have does what you need, splendid.
> If it doesn't, you are looking at stepping beyond DOS.  That will mean
> either a flavor of Windows or a flavor of Linux.  Either way, there's
> a learning curve you're stuck with, and you need to learn more about
> and better understand what your options are.

I can't help but wonder if a simple Chromebook (from Best Buy, etc.)
would fit the bill for him (or me or others). But without QEMU or
similar by default, it's probably less useful. Google probably thinks
emulation would be overkill for the "light" tasks that Chromebooks
support. You can "probably" install a full Ubuntu (instead of default
ChromeOS), but I'm not sure of the potential tradeoffs there (battery
life?).

A lot of issues with old DOS software have to do with printing, as one
guy on BTTR recently mentioned needing. Not sure what is perfectly
ideal here (VDosPlus??). BTW, QEMU 2.9.0 was just released today (but
I'm unaware of any relevant changes for us).

Another long shot would be DOS emulation in the browser via
Javascript. Normally I would shun that for being too buggy or slow,
but there are TONS of Javascript emulators. It's shocking actually,
and some are amazingly good (and network-aware), e.g. OpenRISC. Of
course, DOS is not high priority, and copy.sh's V86 is still too
buggy, but we can dream, can't we?   ;-)

> Proceeding without knowledge is a good way to shoot yourself in *both* feet.

Shooting your foot off? Yes, C++17 was finalized recently.   :-))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WIFI on DOS (was: bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files)

Karen Lewellen
Granted I am not commenting on the exact post, too much  to locate it
exactly.
still, speaking only for myself, I have continued to build upon and find
dos solutions  without having to change operating systems for almost 30
years now.  My choice  to think first about solutions instead of thinking I
could not advance has yet to fail me.
I am surprised on a list dedicated to a Dos program  at how often I read
people suggest going to use something else laughs.
I cannot speak to other  people's computing, but is not that why we
call them personal computers in the first place?
Kare


On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Rugxulo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Dale E Sterner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I installed win 7 on a laptop to see what it could do but not to use it.
>>> I installed software that I bought to see what it  would do on win 7.
>>> A lot of of message boxes came up giving me 24 hours to reactive
>>> or it would shut down forever.
>>
>> Did those messages come from Win7 or the software you installed?
>
> Can't you use a RC (release candidate) for a few months? Or is that
> not supported any longer?
>
>>> I left the test software on being affraid that if I removed it, it would
>>> do it again. Win 7 is now on my junk software list.
>
> In fairness, Win7 doesn't have a lot of life left, so it's not a good
> long-term solution. (Vista very recently died, so no more updates or
> fixes.)
>
>> You got DOS and DOS apps in the old days, got them to where you
>> wanted, and stopped.  If what you have does what you need, splendid.
>> If it doesn't, you are looking at stepping beyond DOS.  That will mean
>> either a flavor of Windows or a flavor of Linux.  Either way, there's
>> a learning curve you're stuck with, and you need to learn more about
>> and better understand what your options are.
>
> I can't help but wonder if a simple Chromebook (from Best Buy, etc.)
> would fit the bill for him (or me or others). But without QEMU or
> similar by default, it's probably less useful. Google probably thinks
> emulation would be overkill for the "light" tasks that Chromebooks
> support. You can "probably" install a full Ubuntu (instead of default
> ChromeOS), but I'm not sure of the potential tradeoffs there (battery
> life?).
>
> A lot of issues with old DOS software have to do with printing, as one
> guy on BTTR recently mentioned needing. Not sure what is perfectly
> ideal here (VDosPlus??). BTW, QEMU 2.9.0 was just released today (but
> I'm unaware of any relevant changes for us).
>
> Another long shot would be DOS emulation in the browser via
> Javascript. Normally I would shun that for being too buggy or slow,
> but there are TONS of Javascript emulators. It's shocking actually,
> and some are amazingly good (and network-aware), e.g. OpenRISC. Of
> course, DOS is not high priority, and copy.sh's V86 is still too
> buggy, but we can dream, can't we?   ;-)
>
>> Proceeding without knowledge is a good way to shoot yourself in *both* feet.
>
> Shooting your foot off? Yes, C++17 was finalized recently.   :-))
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
1234567
Loading...