DOS ain't dead - Considering MS-DOG

Considering MS-DOG - Part 2 (Users)

posted by paulrichards, 07.08.2011, 05:03

> > (4) basic question this - I know MS-DOS 7.1 used portions of 16-bit code
> > for backwards compatibility but is it, and FreeDOS, essentially a 32-bit
> OS?
>
> NO. 100% 16-bit real mode OS. There are FreeDOS kernels for 80386, using
> some new features like 32-bit registers, but still run 100% in 16-bit real
> mode. No support for 32-bit apps in the kernel, no 4 GiB of RAM.

Thanks for clarifying that.

> > In case I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, this investigation of
> > DOS in the 21st centrury is all about 'retro play' i.e it's nothing to
> do
> > with real work.
>
> Why ? :-P

See my reply to Rugxulo - fun, fun, fun.
>
> > I like programming using some of the old Borland
>
> Check out FreePASCAL, FreeBASIC, FASM, CC386 and WATTCOM :-)

I've got FreePASCAL. Don't like BASIC as a language. I've got TASM, Borland's assembler. I've also got C and C++ compilers. Plenty of tools in the toolbox :-D

---
Paul
Melbourne, Australia

Post reply

Complete thread:

Considering MS-DOS - Part 2 - paulrichards, 06.08.2011, 04:46 (Users)
- Considering MS-DOS - Part 2 - Rugxulo, 06.08.2011, 05:05
  - Considering MS-DOS - Part 2 - paulrichards, 07.08.2011, 04:58
- Considering MS-DOG - Part 2 - DOS386, 06.08.2011, 15:00
  - DOS, not DOG - mbbrutman, 06.08.2011, 17:31
  - Considering MS-DOG - Part 2 - paulrichards, 07.08.2011, 05:03
    - Considering MS-DOG - Part 2 - marcov, 07.08.2011, 20:43