DOS ain't dead

RayeR

CZ,
19.11.2007, 10:43

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version (Miscellaneous)

Thread locked

Hi,
Does anybody tried LZ-DOS 7.1? (I found link on Lucho's site). It's direct replacement for MS-DOS 7.1 and should be 100% compatible. It can boot my win98se well but it hangs when I try to boot previous DOS version (I have MS-DOS 7.1 and MS-DOS 6.22 on same partition) using the last startup menu item. It just displays "Starting previous LZ-DOS version..." (or similar) and hangs. So then is useless for me.
But it's nice replacement for win98 safe boot floppy, it saves near 200kB of system files for other use.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

sol

19.11.2007, 17:56

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> Hi,
> Does anybody tried LZ-DOS 7.1? (I found link on Lucho's site). It's direct
> replacement for MS-DOS 7.1 and should be 100% compatible. It can boot my
> win98se well but it hangs when I try to boot previous DOS version (I have
> MS-DOS 7.1 and MS-DOS 6.22 on same partition) using the last startup menu
> item. It just displays "Starting previous LZ-DOS version..." (or similar)
> and hangs. So then is useless for me.
> But it's nice replacement for win98 safe boot floppy, it saves near 200kB
> of system files for other use.

I've viewed LZ-DOS in memory and compared it to MS-DOS 7.10. Almost everything is identical, so yes, it is 100% compatible, since it's a ripped copy of MS-DOS 7.10 with some copyright information removed.

Not all the copyright information is removed, though - it still contains this in memory:

"MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1995 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material - Property of Microsoft All rights reserved"

It's bad enough to be copying other people's software when they don't want you to, but to be removing credit? That's pretty low.

sol

19.11.2007, 17:59

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> Not all the copyright information is removed, though - it still contains
> this in memory:
>
> "MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1995 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material
> - Property of Microsoft All rights reserved"
>
> It's bad enough to be copying other people's software when they don't want
> you to, but to be removing credit? That's pretty low.

In case anyone is curious, this is at offset 0x9E15D in memory, and the same string is in 0x941C in the original MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS.

And yes, it is totally illegal to be distributing this, and much riskier than simply distributing the original MS-DOS 7.10.

lucho

19.11.2007, 19:05
(edited by lucho, 19.11.2007, 19:22)

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

> > Not all the copyright information is removed, though - it still contains this in memory:
> >
> > "MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1995 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material
> > - Property of Microsoft All rights reserved"
>
> In case anyone is curious, this is at offset 0x9E15D in memory, and the
> same string is in 0x941C in the original MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS.

This is misleading. The string at 9E15Dh must be from COMMAND.COM! For those of us who use 4DOS instead, there is no such string, nowhere in the RAM. For those who are willing to confirm my words, please try my hex-boot disk, load LZ-DOS and examine menory (for example, you can start FM and press Alt-7). Of course, you will find nothing of the sort in memory.

Sorry for breaking my promise not to post here anymore, but such misleading information is really something I can't stand. Do you think that if your theory is correct, the person who managed to pack a kernel in a non-standard format would fail to mention the so obvious copyright string and not remove it? And what about the huge difference between 9E15Dh and 0941Ch?

By the way, we now suspect "sol" is in fact Andreas Grech. His goal is to discredit Jack and me in any possible way but he discredits himself instead.

Steve

US,
19.11.2007, 19:36

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> Do you think
> that if your theory is correct, the person who managed to pack a kernel in
> a non-standard format would fail to mention the so obvious copyright string
> and not remove it?

It happens a lot.

> And what about the huge difference between 9E15Dh and 0941Ch?

Binaries can't be edited or decompiled/recompiled?

> By the way, we now suspect "sol" is in fact Andreas Grech. His goal is to
> discredit Jack and me in any possible way but he discredits himself
> instead.

sol is a real Canadian. There is linguistic evidence.

lucho

19.11.2007, 20:11

@ Steve

LZ-DOS 7.1

> > And what about the huge difference between 9E15Dh and 0941Ch?
>
> Binaries can't be edited or decompiled/recompiled?

The point is about the addresses of these strings. 9E15Dh is near the end of the 640K conventional memory and the string there belongs to Microsoft's COMMAND.COM which he uses. 0941Ch is about 37K from address 0, and the string there belongs to Microsoft's IO.SYS which he uses for comparison, but not to IO.SYS of LZ-DOS.

> sol is a real Canadian. There is linguistic evidence.

I'd be glad if you prove me wrong.

Steve US, 20.11.2007, 18:29 @ lucho	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> > sol is a real Canadian. There is linguistic evidence. > > I'd be glad if you prove me wrong. Let's make the challenge more interesting - you prove that you are right.

lucho 20.11.2007, 19:20 @ Steve	Canadian
	> > > sol is a real Canadian. There is linguistic evidence. > > > > I'd be glad if you prove me wrong. > > Let's make the challenge more interesting - you prove that you are right. OK, he isn't Grech. But I thought that Canadian English = US English.

sol 20.11.2007, 19:43 @ lucho	Canadian
	> OK, he isn't Grech. But I thought that Canadian English = US English. Canadian english is British english, for the most part :)

Steve US, 21.11.2007, 02:11 @ sol	Canadian
	> > OK, he isn't Grech. But I thought that Canadian English = US English. > > Canadian english is British english, for the most part :) Not 100%. But you do spell funny like the Brits.

Steve US, 21.11.2007, 02:09 @ lucho	Canadian
	> > > > sol is a real Canadian. There is linguistic evidence. > > > > > > I'd be glad if you prove me wrong. > > > > Let's make the challenge more interesting - you prove that you are > right. > > OK, he isn't Grech. But I thought that Canadian English = US English. Not 100%.

sol

19.11.2007, 20:06

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> This is misleading. The string at 9E15Dh must be from COMMAND.COM! For
> those of us who use 4DOS instead, there is no such string, nowhere in the
> RAM. For those who are willing to confirm my words, please try my
> hex-boot disk, load
> LZ-DOS and examine menory (for example, you can start FM and press Alt-7).
> Of course, you will find nothing of the sort in memory.
>
> Sorry for breaking my promise not to post here anymore, but such
> misleading information is really something I can't stand. Do you think
> that if your theory is correct, the person who managed to pack a kernel in
> a non-standard format would fail to mention the so obvious copyright string
> and not remove it? And what about the huge difference between 9E15Dh and
> 0941Ch?
>
> By the way, we now suspect "sol" is in fact Andreas Grech. His goal is to
> discredit Jack and me in any possible way but he discredits himself
> instead.

You're right, it is from COMMAND.COM, my bad. I should've known better than to think whoever stole MS-DOS and renamed it would have any scruples and leave any string related to MS in it.

So let's do some further digging.

I downloaded your horrid excuse for a bootdisk and removed the settings causing it to crash.

I set it to DOS=LOW, and my bootdisk to DOS=LOW. I added a memory viewer and mem.exe. "MEM /C /P" reveals:

Lucho's Lame LZ-DOS 7.10 bootdisk "SYSTEM" memory size: 80048 bytes
My MS-DOS 7.10 bootdisk "SYSTEM" memory size: 80080 bytes

Weird! 32 bytes difference. Probably a buffer :) How'd this LZ-DOS manage to end up taking the same amount of space as MS-DOS?

0x1EC3 on Lucho's lame LZ-DOS 7.10 bootdisk: "COUNTRY.SYS"
0x1EC3 on my MS-DOS 7.10 bootdisk: "COUNTRY.SYS"
0x1DF13 in my MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS: "COUNTRY.SYS"

All the data around "COUNTRY.SYS" matches as well. Weird! What's LZ-DOS doing with an obscure COUNTRY.SYS reference that matches the one in IO.SYS from MS-DOS 7.10?

0x1910 on Lucho's lame LZ-DOS 7.10 bootdisk: CUEAAAACEEEIIAAEAA etc etc
0x1910 on my MS-DOS 7.10 bootdisk: CUEAAAACEEEIIAAEAA etc etc
0x1D960 in my MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS: CUEAAAACEEEIIAAEAA etc etc

Weird!!!! LZ-DOS also has a really strange, obscure string that MS-DOS 7.10 also has. In the exact same memory offset once again! What a strange coincidence! Now what on earth would a DOS cloner need this string for? No one knows.

If you take a peek at the IO.SYS in "LZ-DOS 7.10", you can see there are no obvious strings showing in it. Weird, where are the strings? Why when we view it with an asm viewer like HIEW or QVIEW, can't we see any legible assembly? Hrmm! Waitaminute! It's compressed! Why are they compressing it? What would the original filesize be? Perhaps because it would match IO.SYS from MS-DOS 7.10 exactly? :)

lucho

19.11.2007, 20:24

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

> CUEAAAACEEEIIAAEAA etc etc
>
> Weird!!!! LZ-DOS also has a really strange, obscure string that MS-DOS 7.10 also has.

For those not familiar with DOS kernels, that's an internal NLS table that should be present in every DOS kernel.

> If you take a peek at the IO.SYS in "LZ-DOS 7.10", you can see there are
> no obvious strings showing in it. Weird, where are the strings? Why when
> we view it with an asm viewer like HIEW or QVIEW, can't we see any legible
> assembly? Hrmm! Waitaminute! It's compressed! Why are they compressing
> it? What would the original filesize be? Perhaps because it would match
> IO.SYS from MS-DOS 7.10 exactly? :)

Try to decompress it if you can, to see whether you're right or not. I bet you'd fail, but even if you succeed, you'd surely see that they don't match at all.

For any problems, flames, suspicions, etc. regarding LZ-DOS, please turn to SPS who released it (see their site for more information), not to me!

sol

19.11.2007, 20:26

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> Try to decompress it if you can, to see whether you're right or not. I bet
> you'd fail, but even if you succeed, you'd surely see that they don't match
> at all.
>
> For any problems, flames, suspicions, etc. regarding LZ-DOS, please turn
> to SPS who released it (see their site for more information), not to me!

If they don't match at all, then where are these strings coming from? Why are they at the exact same addresses?

lucho 19.11.2007, 20:38 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> If they don't match at all, then where are these strings coming from? Why are they at the exact same addresses? I don't know. Unpacking it would probably answer your questions.

sol 19.11.2007, 20:45 @ lucho	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> I don't know. Unpacking it would probably answer your questions. I don't have any question about it. It is MS-DOS 7.10. I think I may just unpack it, for you and your other friends with no ability to reason.

lucho 19.11.2007, 20:49 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> I think I may just unpack it, for you and your other friends with no ability to reason. Good luck! But please provide enough evidence to prove that you really did it.

sol

19.11.2007, 21:32

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> Good luck! But please provide enough evidence to prove that you really did
> it.

I did part of it :)

If you pop it into HIEW or QVIEW, you'll see at 0x202 within the "LZ-DOS" IO.SYS:

inc dx
dec dx
jmp 0x704

<big chunk of crap code>

0x704:

cli
mov ax, cs
mov es, ax
mov ax, si
mov dx, di
mov di, 0202h
mov si, 0205h
mov cx, 04FFh
0x716:
xor byte ptr cs:[si],cl
movsb es:[di],cs:[si]
loop 0x716
mov si, ax
mov di, dx
sti
jmp 0x202 ; 0x202 is where the unobfuscated code is now

sol

19.11.2007, 21:39
(edited by sol, 19.11.2007, 22:29)

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

Let's continue, shall we?

Now, clip everything up to 0x205 in IO.SYS, since "mov si, 0205h" refers there.

Clip everything after ~04FFh bytes. You should now have a small file around 1300 bytes. Save it as "DATA". Assemble this [edit: with TASM] and run it. Omg, look, it "decrypted" into the exact same 1279 bytes that are at 0x202 in MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS.

What was the point of the LZ-DOS code? There wasn't. It just obfuscated it. If you take 1279 bytes from MS-DOS' IO.SYS at 0x202, and paste it into LZ-DOS at 0x202, over top of the 1279 bytes there...LZ-DOS will boot just fine. Why? LZ-DOS 7.10 is a hacked copy of MS-DOS 7.10.

locals assume ds:PROGRAM, cs:PROGRAM PROGRAM segment public word 'CODE' org 100h .386p Start: cld mov ax, cs mov ds, ax mov es, ax mov dx, offset sfile mov ax, 3D00h int 21h mov word ptr [shandle], ax mov dx, offset dfile mov ah, 3ch mov cx, 0000h int 21h mov word ptr [dhandle], ax mov bx, word ptr [shandle] ; read from file mov cx, 1300 mov dx, offset buffer mov ah, 3Fh int 21h mov di, offset buffer-3 mov si, offset buffer mov cx, 04FFh whateverthisdoes: xor byte ptr cs:[si],cl movsb loop whateverthisdoes mov cx, 1300 mov dx, offset buffer-3 mov ah, 40h mov bx, word ptr [dhandle] int 21h mov ah, 3Eh mov bx, word ptr [shandle] int 21h mov ah, 3Eh mov bx, word ptr [dhandle] int 21h mov ax, 4c00h int 21h ;--------------------------------------------------------- sfile db 'DATA',00h dfile db 'DECD',00h shandle dw ? dhandle dw ? padding db 100 dup(?) buffer db 2000 dup(?) PROGRAM ends END Start

sol 19.11.2007, 21:55 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	I chopped out the 1279 bytes from the original MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS and pasted it into the hacked version people have named LZ-DOS. It boots just fine...and hey, a few nanoseconds faster, since it doesn't have to do as much unobfuscating. I shall have to find a place to upload it.

sol 19.11.2007, 21:58 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> I chopped out the 1279 bytes from the original MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS and > pasted it into the hacked version people have named LZ-DOS. It boots just > fine...and hey, a few nanoseconds faster, since it doesn't have to do as > much unobfuscating. > > I shall have to find a place to upload it. http://rapidshare.com/files/70881899/IO.SYS.html

sol 19.11.2007, 22:00 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	Do any "FOOLS" need more proof? :)

lucho 20.11.2007, 07:35 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	Good, but you just decrypted the loader. You didn't unpack the kernel.

sol 20.11.2007, 08:13 @ lucho	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> Good, but you just decrypted the loader. You didn't unpack the > kernel. I don't need to. The "loader" is an assembled section of code - 1279 bytes that are part of the kernel source. This is 1279 bytes that can't match between two independent projects. It proves LZ-DOS is a ripped copy of MS-DOS without any doubt.

lucho 20.11.2007, 09:43 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> > Good, but you just decrypted the loader. You didn't unpack the kernel. > > I don't need to. Because you can't. Well, rest on your forensic laurels here then... The great Deng said "doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice": especially true for LZ-DOS.

RayeR

CZ,
20.11.2007, 12:52

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

Heh, I wonder that a huge discusion rised. I didn't analyzed LZDOS files because of compression and I didn't have motivation and time to do it. But now I have a feeling that somebody made LZ-DOS as a disassemble/patch/recompile or binary patching to MS-DOS 7.1 and crypting to hide something. I understand the purpose that it would be good to have free or "free" 100% compatible DOS 7.x version.
But I'd like to know if LZ-DOS provides something more than compatability with win 9x/3x (there are aslo pathes for MSDOS7) and less size. If there are some noticable kernel changes to make it run faster/less memory usage or it's jus a copy (like AMD made intel 386, 486 clones).
And what about P.L.C. Systems company? There are very few informations about it which mean that simply someone who made LZ-DOS suck it up from a finger?

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

lucho 20.11.2007, 13:25 @ RayeR	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> And what about P.L.C. Systems company? The LZ-DOS site says that their full name is "Software Products and Systems" (SPS). There is some other information about them like their previous SPS-DOS.

RayeR

CZ,
20.11.2007, 14:51

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> > And what about P.L.C. Systems company?
>
> The LZ-DOS site says that their full name is "Software Products and
> Systems" (SPS). There is some other information about them like their
> previous SPS-DOS.

There are only few references on google for "sps-dos" & "lz-dos", I found one here:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=615
OK, even if it is a product of real company it may be 99% based on reversed code. I think it was not so unusual in communist and post-communists countries (e.g. our n.p. Slusovice).
BTW I still didn't get answer if it have some advanded features over MSDOS.
About booting via NTLOADER - I'd like to use it as direct replacement for MSDOS and just wanted to know if this issue is paaear only on my system or it's common.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

lucho

20.11.2007, 15:28

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1

> There are only few references on google for "sps-dos" & "lz-dos", I found one here:
> http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=615

Yes, the good old times when Bulgaria manufactured 40% of the computers in the Eastern block, employing 300,000 people and gaining $13,000,000,000 per year! ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_h...re_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries#Bulgarian_Computers

> OK, even if it is a product of real company it may be 99% based on
> reversed code. I think it was not so unusual in communist and
> post-communists countries (e.g. our n.p. Slusovice).

What is Slusovice? A town and a computer name at the same time, like Pravetz? And what about "n.p."?

> BTW I still didn't get answer if it have some advanded features over MSDOS.

Except that it can run Windows 3.1 (unlike MS-DOS 7.10), I'm not aware of any.

> About booting via NTLOADER - I'd like to use it as direct replacement for
> MSDOS and just wanted to know if this issue is paaear only on my system or
> it's common.

I can't test this anymore, since I upgraded from FAT16 to FAT32 a few years ago.

RayeR

CZ,
20.11.2007, 18:15

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> What is Slusovice? A town and a computer name at the same time, like
> Pravetz? And what about "n.p."?

Slu?ovice is a small town (about 3000 citizens) in Czech. Rep. where was (as in many other places) national agricultural company called "Agrokombinát Slu?ovice" or JZD (Jednotne Zemedelske Druzstvo) Slusovice. In '70-'80 it was turned into industrial zone where was developed and manufactured 8bit and later 16bit microcomputers. I can't quickly find some english site, so try to look at bottom of site for "TNS HC?8" computer.
http://sen.felk.cvut.cz/sen/index_cz.html?historie/mikropocitace.html
8bit ones was a big Babylon of integrated circuits from diff. countries of RVHP. Like CPU Z80 clones from DDR, dynamic RAM and EPROM from USSR, and 74 logic from our national company TESLA. Tesla also made some microcontrollers like MHB3000, 8035, 8051, 8080A but as I know they didn't get further to x86 clones. 16bit 286 computers was based on foreign snadard AT mainboards. But we had other companies like ZPA (Zavody Prumyslove Automatizace) in city Novy Bor, where they made XT board clones using intel 8088 CPU. Compared to western concurents it looked very robust and overweighted :). And BTW as I readed, some engineers from Slusovice was importing english SW and do translations and also rewrote copyrigts. It was one of few companies who did business with western block.

> I can't test this anymore, since I upgraded from FAT16 to FAT32 a few
> years ago.

I still rather use multiple FAT16 volumes for DOS and FAT32 for windows.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

sol

20.11.2007, 19:04

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=615
> OK, even if it is a product of real company it may be 99% based on
> reversed code. I think it was not so unusual in communist and
> post-communists countries (e.g. our n.p. Slusovice).
> BTW I still didn't get answer if it have some advanded features over
> MSDOS.

It doesn't have new features, and it's not "based on reversed code". Apparently no one's really understood what I've shown here :)

If someone reverse engineered IO.SYS, they would then have to assemble it themselves. Unless they reverse engineered it perfectly (pretty much impossible), and ended up choosing the same assembler to use and the exact same options to assemble with (unlikely), the code would be different.

If I changed anything, the code would be different. Even if I changed a single byte, the the jump addresses around it would have all changed.

The only way this could have been done, would have been to take the original MS-DOS 7.10 IO.SYS, use a hex editor to remove copyright strings and then manually compress data and add decompression code.

This means that it's more likely to be unstable (probably why I can't get it to boot on a hard disk instead of a floppy), and it's also a little *wee* bit slower.

Even if it had been reverse engineered code, it would be just as illegal. If anyone were good enough to code their own kernel, they wouldn't need to steal a chunk of loader code anyway.

There is *no chance* the LZ-DOS kernel is not a hacked MS-DOS 7.10 kernel. There's no chance it's an independent project or even a reverse engineered & reassembled version. Just to make sure we're clear here. :-D

sol

20.11.2007, 19:09

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

What I find amusing about all this, is that Jack R. Ellis whines his ass off about people posting links to his drivers, or reposting his drivers with full copyright and without any modifications.

Yet, his friends (Johnson Lam, Lucho, who knows who else...) are posting other people's work with copyrights deleted out of it in full breach of the licenses.

Since you want to defend this crap so strongly, I'll hit you back where it hurts. I'd like to see "LZ-DOS" references removed from all your websites (Lucho, Johnson Lam & I'll be checking on others homepages).

What if you don't? Then I'll do the following:

a) Send an e-mail to a friend at MS, and see if they care. They probably won't, since they're not profiting from it. They might send out some threatening letters though. Since this may not be effective enough on its own...

b) I will take Jack Ellis' drivers, remove all references to Jack, update them and release new versions periodically under their own name. Though this isn't particularly ethical, it *is* legal, unlike what you guys are doing, since the sources were released under "free use" as opposed to BSD/GPL which require that copyright notices remain :)

You've got 10 days.

lucho

20.11.2007, 19:54
(edited by lucho, 20.11.2007, 20:06)

@ sol

SOL comes from StoOL-pigeon

You, Mr. Anonymous Coward (as you proudly call yourself) are even more mad and much more mean than Andreas Grech.

See now the thread "Jack drivers aren't gone!" to see that the excuse for your "ultimatum" is wrong. You must be really mad to expect that somebody will react to it. It can't cause anything but yawns. It's interesting that you don't direct it to the site of LZ-DOS but to us. This proves my theory that you're here with only one purpose: to kill Jack, or if you can't, to hurt him as much as you can!

You must be nothing less than a professional murderer coming here for fun in the holiday between 2 murders. Grech is like an innocent lamb compared to you.

But if you think that somebody from our Five of Good cares about you, or fears your threats, you're deadly wrong. Your devil's horns, tail and hoofs don't fear anybody.

So, go ahead! Act now, without waiting 10 days or even 1 day, mad stool-pigeon.

P.S. Now everybody should see who is the real Nazi here. The "best", 200% Nazi.
-----
I forgot: There are no references to Jack in his drivers (obviously you didn't care even to read his README), so there's nothing to change. You lost.

sol

20.11.2007, 20:22

@ lucho

SOL comes from StoOL-pigeon

> See now the thread "Jack drivers aren't gone!" to see that the excuse for
> your "ultimatum" is wrong. You must be really mad to expect that somebody
> will react to it. It can't cause anything but yawns. It's interesting that
> you don't direct it to the site of LZ-DOS but to us. This proves my theory

I didn't say I'd fork it because Jack's no longer releasing them. Anyway, so, you won't remove your copyright infringing, stolen code software from your bootdisk? Alright then :)

lucho

21.11.2007, 11:00

@ sol

"Forking" is much worse than copying

> I didn't say I'd fork it because Jack's no longer releasing them.

I don't believe you're capable to even understand Jack's code, let alone "fork" it. And beware, your "fork" will very quickly become obsolete by next releases. Besides, to "fork" something just to add your name (or alias) on it is useless.

> Anyway, so, you won't remove your copyright infringing,

Sorry, I don't recognise the very concept of "copy right" over computer programs and am against it. (Just different ideological views than yours.)

> stolen code software

As I already argued here (forum_entry.php?id=879), software cannot be stolen by definition. But if an author (Jack) has expressed his negative attitude towards you, to "fork" his code is a much greater sin than just to use code written by a dozen of unknown programmers.

> from your bootdisk? Alright then :)

Yes, we prefer just to ignore your threats.

lucho 20.11.2007, 19:30 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> This means that it's more likely to be unstable (probably why I can't get > it to boot on a hard disk instead of a floppy) It boots from hard disk fine here (from a FAT32 partition).

sol 20.11.2007, 19:34 @ lucho	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> > This means that it's more likely to be unstable (probably why I can't > get > > it to boot on a hard disk instead of a floppy) > > It boots from hard disk fine here (from a FAT32 partition). That's the thing about hacked & unstable code. It's not unstable for everyone.

RayeR

CZ,
20.11.2007, 19:51

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

BTW if I remember well, io.sys from windows contains fullscreen VGA logo. Is it also included and compressed in LZ-DOS? :)
I agree that recompiling of slightly changed source may produce big changes in binary. As I readed you revealed a same part at the beginning of io.sys. Do you know how to decompress whole file? It would be interesting. If it's UPX compression there should be some group of bytes same in other UPXed files.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

sol

21.11.2007, 00:36

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1

> BTW if I remember well, io.sys from windows contains fullscreen VGA logo.
> Is it also included and compressed in LZ-DOS? :)

I don't know. The logo takes about 100k. It's possible to remove it, or at least write over it with something that is compressible like a 'nop' instruction (I've done it in the past, playing around).

I'd have to decompress it to determine if they removed it, or just altered the check for 'bootgui' to behave as though it were always 0.

> I agree that recompiling of slightly changed source may produce big
> changes in binary. As I readed you revealed a same part at the beginning
> of io.sys. Do you know how to decompress whole file? It would be
> interesting. If it's UPX compression there should be some group of bytes
> same in other UPXed files.

Decompressing the whole file would be a matter of continuing the work I did earlier. This is either:

a) Step through a pile of assembly until you find something that looks like a decompression routine.

or

b) Skim through the file for something that looks like code, rather than compressed data, and then step through it.

Neither of those are particularly appealing to me, especially since I've already proven this is the MS-DOS kernel (or the 0.0000001% chance that it's merely reverse engineered & stolen code, which is no better).

lucho

21.11.2007, 10:32

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

> Neither of those are particularly appealing to me, especially since I've
> already proven this is the MS-DOS kernel (or the 0.0000001% chance that
> it's merely reverse engineered & stolen code, which is no better).

You proved that the small kernel loader is the same as in MS-DOS 7.10 (as is by the way the boot sector whose work it continues), but you can't prove anything about the real kernel itself until you can unpack it.

tom

Germany (West),
22.11.2007, 12:39

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1 IS MSDOS 7.1

> > Neither of those are particularly appealing to me, especially since I've
> > already proven this is the MS-DOS kernel (or the 0.0000001% chance that
> > it's merely reverse engineered & stolen code, which is no better).
>
> You proved that the small kernel loader is the same as in MS-DOS 7.10 (as
> is by the way the boot sector whose work it continues), but you can't
> prove anything about the real kernel itself until you can unpack it.

Lucho, I know that you don't accept the concept of 'copyright', but that
does mean you may act just stupid (or just lazy).

LZDOS can be easily unpacked - by booting it.

what I did:
create a MSDOS 7.1 floppy with
IO.SYS
command.com (freedos)
mem.exe (freedos)
debug.com (freedos)
autoexec.bat (empty)
config.sys (just containing DOS=LOW)

create a LZDOS 7.1 floppy with IO.SYS replaced by 'LZDOS' IO.SYS

boot this 2 maschines to compare

a:>MEM
says 488 KB free (DOS is loaded low) in both cases. so what ?

a:>MEM /D
lists addresses of all devices in the system. *ALL* devices are at the
same address. That's interesting, but maybe a really undocumented
secret requires that.

OK, lets look at the devices themself; lets look at the code of
the COM4 device handler (mem /d has provided the address).

a:>debug
-d 70:DC

strange, looks identical on both maschines.
take the 4'th word; it's the address of COM4->interupt handler
u 70:2b8
...

still identical, so the conclusion is inevitable:
the COM4 'interrupt' handler is identical (instruction for instruction),
which for me ends this discussion.

if you want to prove *YOUR* point (that LZDOS is created by some sibirian
genius),

do the same for the CON device, CLOCK device, or any other device.
disassmble the INT 21/INT 2f handler, and show us any (significant)
difference.

otherwise just admit, that this genius just removed some MS startup screen,
and compressed the MS 7.1 kernel (which is remarkable and welcomed,
nevertheless)

I hope that ends this war, and we can get back to technical issues.

Tom

Rugxulo

Usono,
22.11.2007, 16:58

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1

> But I'd like to know if LZ-DOS provides something more than compatability
> with win 9x/3x (there are aslo pathes for MSDOS7) and less size. If there
> are some noticable kernel changes to make it run faster/less memory usage
> or it's jus a copy (like AMD made intel 386, 486 clones).

BTW, I'm no computer historian, but AFAIK, AMD was something like an official 3rd-party producer of 286 chips. It wasn't until the 386 that Intel went exclusively with Compaq. (Or something like that.) And let's not forget famous chips (even if obscure to me) like the "fast" NEC V20/V30s, which improved quite a bit upon Intel's offering. So, I don't exactly consider AMD a horrible company ripping off Intel (not that you or anybody else probably does either).

(Corrections and clarifications to the above facts welcome.)

Berlin, Germany,
22.11.2007, 21:28

@ Rugxulo

LZ-DOS 7.1

> BTW, I'm no computer historian, but AFAIK, AMD was something like an
> official 3rd-party producer of 286 chips. It wasn't until the 386 that
> Intel went exclusively with Compaq. (Or something like that.)

That's true. "Prior to this, the difficulty of making chips and the uncertainty of reliable supply required that any mass-market semiconductor be multi-sourced, that is, made by two or more manufacturers, the second and subsequent ones manufacturing under license from the designer." (from Intel 80386)

A great book about such stuff is Inside Intel by Tim Jackson. :-)

---
Forum admin

Berlin, Germany,
20.11.2007, 10:58

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

> You're right, it is from COMMAND.COM, my bad. I should've known better

Does it really make a difference? MS COMMAND.COM is copyrighted software as well.

---
Forum admin

lucho 20.11.2007, 12:45 @ rr	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> > You're right, it is from COMMAND.COM, my bad. I should've known better > > Does it really make a difference? MS COMMAND.COM is copyrighted software as well. But it's not offered with LZ-DOS.

sol 19.11.2007, 20:10 @ lucho	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> By the way, we now suspect "sol" is in fact Andreas Grech. His goal is to > discredit Jack and me in any possible way but he discredits himself > instead. Since you're so defensive about this, I'm going to assume you're the low-life that removed the copyright information out of MS-DOS and called it "LZ-DOS".

lucho

19.11.2007, 20:33

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1

> > By the way, we now suspect "sol" is in fact Andreas Grech. His goal is to
> > discredit Jack and me in any possible way but he discredits himself instead.
>
> Since you're so defensive about this, I'm going to assume you're the
> low-life that removed the copyright information out of MS-DOS and called
> it "LZ-DOS".

You're greatly overestimating my abilities. If I can't even make a decent boot diskette (albeit it can boot 6 different kernels, thanks to Eric Auer's METAKERN), how could I be able to compress a kernel that is neither in an .EXE nor a .COM nor a .SYS file format, which is a much, much more complex task? Come on!

Probably you're Grech to the same degree that I'm the one who released LZ-DOS.
Please redirect your blames to the ones who released it (SPS - see the LZ-DOS site), not me!

sol

19.11.2007, 20:37

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> You're greatly overestimating my abilities. If I can't even make a decent
> boot diskette (albeit it can boot 6 different kernels, thanks to Eric
> Auer's METAKERN), how could I be able to compress a kernel that is neither
> in an .EXE nor a .COM nor a .SYS file format, which is a much, much more
> complex task? Come on!
>
> Probably you're Grech to the same degree that I'm the one who released
> LZ-DOS.
> Please redirect your blames to the ones who released it (SPS - see the
> LZ-DOS site), not me!

If you don't have a clue about it - then don't defend it. It is, without a doubt, MS-DOS 7.10.

lucho 19.11.2007, 20:46 @ sol	LZ-DOS 7.1
	> If you don't have a clue about it - then don't defend it. You attack it, so someone must defend it, however clueless he may be... I like it. It saves me a lot of space on my boot disk

Rugxulo

Usono,
20.11.2007, 00:07

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

> Probably you're Grech to the same degree that I'm the one who released
> LZ-DOS.
> Please redirect your blames to the ones who released it (SPS - see the
> LZ-DOS site), not me!

I'm sure that sol is not Japheth. Don't obsess too much over real identities because it doesn't really matter anyways. I mean, we're all just strangers anyways. It's not like most of us will ever meet in real life. (DOS CON?? Heh.) Don't take it all too personally, we're all just mouthing off online, nothing too seriously life threatening or whatever.

lucho

20.11.2007, 07:46

@ Rugxulo

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

> I'm sure that sol is not Japheth.

His English sounds like native, so you're probably right. So the secret remains.

> Don't obsess too much over real identities because it doesn't really matter anyways. I mean, we're all
> just strangers anyways. It's not like most of us will ever meet in real life. (DOS CON?? Heh.)

The unwritten laws of ethics say that if someone is so kind to say his real name, it's unkind for the other side to still stay in darkness. Just unkind. Or, if you prefer, disrespectful.

> Don't take it all too personally, we're all just mouthing off online, nothing too seriously life threatening or whatever.

I wish you were right!

Japheth

Germany (South),
20.11.2007, 12:01

@ lucho

I apologize.

> The unwritten laws of ethics say that if someone is so kind to say his
> real name, it's unkind for the other side to still stay in darkness. Just
> unkind. Or, if you prefer, disrespectful.

That's indeed interesting: a proven thief, slenderer, coward and liar teaching about ethics. I have to correct my previous claim telling that you're lacking humor. I apologize.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 20.11.2007, 12:49 @ Japheth	I apologize.
	> That's indeed interesting: a proven thief, slenderer, coward and liar teaching about ethics. Look into the mirror and you will see him. A slanderer, coward, liar, etc., etc. > I have to correct my previous claim telling that you're lacking humor. I apologize. Thanks. By the way, are you writing this from the madhouse? Get well soon!

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 09:28

@ lucho

anger shortens one's life

> > That's indeed interesting: a proven thief, slenderer, coward and liar
> teaching about ethics.
>
> Look into the mirror and you will see him. A slanderer, coward, liar,
> etc., etc.

Why so angry? Neither of you has really hurt the other, have you? Seriously, we DOS fans (whoever's left, anyways) should stick together. "A house divided can't stand." Any perceived grudges and anger should be sent packing. We've got more constructive things to think about.

---
Know your limits.h

lucho 21.11.2007, 10:03 @ Rugxulo	anger shortens one's life
	Don't mistake contempt with anger.

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 10:09

@ Rugxulo

anger shortens one's life

> Why so angry? Neither of you has really hurt the other, have you?
> Seriously, we DOS fans (whoever's left, anyways) should stick together. "A
> house divided can't stand." Any perceived grudges and anger should be sent
> packing. We've got more constructive things to think about.

The DOS community is so small, it's more like a family. And as in every family there must be some members who don't love each others. No need to worry, Rugxulo, we're nevertheless having fun with our "smalltalk".

---
MS-DOS forever!

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 09:25

@ lucho

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

> > I'm sure that sol is not Japheth.
>
> His English sounds like native, so you're probably right. So the secret
> remains.
>

It's not a secret, just not something to be thrown out there willy nilly. We all want some level of privacy to prevent ourselves from being hurt. We can't all get along, so we kinda hide a bit to stay relatively calm. Boundaries are indeed needed, especially when diehards (like us?) take everything so seriously and are willing to argue for our beliefs. I don't know what it is about plain text, maybe it's just hard to express emotion or neutrality, but arguments seem to pop up a lot (forums, newsgroups). You just have to let it slide, just do your own thing, let people think what they want. Of course you can add your $0.02, but be VERY selective, you can't change peoples' minds. They are entitled to their opinions and emotions.

---
Know your limits.h

lucho 21.11.2007, 12:10 @ Rugxulo	About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again
	I understand, but what breach of privacy is just to say your first name (as you did)? When X says "Hi, I'm <first name>", Y here says "Sorry, my first name is top secret and I'll never disclose it here because I don't like some of you". This is just a superiority complex in my humble opinion (I'm not a psychiatrist).

Steve

US,
21.11.2007, 12:32

@ lucho

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

> I understand, but what breach of privacy is just to say your first name (as
> you did)? When X says "Hi, I'm <first name>", Y here says

There's no "Y" here.

> "Sorry, my first name is top secret and I'll never disclose it here because
> I don't like some of you".

Nobody said that.

> "I don't like some of you".

Jack said that, in substance. You too.

> This is just a superiority complex

Nonsense.

> I'm not a psychiatrist.

That's obvious.

lucho 21.11.2007, 12:38 @ Steve	About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again
	> > When X says "Hi, I'm <first name>", Y here says > > There's no "Y" here. You know whom I mean by "Y". I don't recognise his so-called "alias". > > "Sorry, my first name is top secret and I'll never disclose it here because I don't like some of you". > > Nobody said that. He said something similar: > Tell my name to a bunch of people who clearly lack a grip on reality? No thanks.

Steve US, 21.11.2007, 13:17 @ lucho	About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again
	> He said something similar: > > > Tell my name to a bunch of people who clearly lack a grip on reality? No > thanks. sol [which is a name] did say that. But there's nothing about liking or not liking anybody. Maybe sol likes you. You are, after all, very funny.

lucho 21.11.2007, 13:22 @ Steve	About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again
	> sol [which is a name] did say that. I know that Sol comes from Solomon, but he denied that his name was Solomon. > But there's nothing about liking or not liking anybody. Maybe sol likes you. I doubt. Nobody threatens someone whom he likes. > You are, after all, very funny. Thanks for the compliment, same to you!

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 12:46

@ lucho

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

> I understand, but what breach of privacy is just to say your first name (as
> you did)? When X says "Hi, I'm <first name>", Y here says "Sorry, my first
> name is top secret and I'll never disclose it here because I don't like
> some of you". This is just a
> superiority
> complex in my humble opinion (I'm not a psychiatrist).

How much info about sol do you really want or need? Need to telephone him? Write him a letter? See his picture? Bake him a cake? Learn what kind of car he drives or languages he speaks? Unless you're selling or buying something from him, it's probably not necessary.

The more high profile you are, the more flak you get and have to put up with (e.g. Eddie Van Halen). I mean, the last thing that guy needs is more opinions on what to do with his life. But he's famous as dirt, and he can't really "turn if off". Same with George Bush. People openly dislike him (even though he's small potatoes, honestly). He becomes almost a scapegoat for everything. And yes, there are people who will do bad things if they know where you live (true robbers, violent criminals). Of course, maybe we're all just jaded from the nightly news.

Is sol really taking advantage of you, misleading you, hurting you by not revealing his true birth name? Doubt it. I mean, we even know who "Deep Throat" is nowadays, but honestly, who cares? (Not me.) I say, "Bo-ring." Like I said, we all have limited contact between us anyways, and in a way it's much simpler that way: no huge commitments, only simple chat here and there. Do you know the name of every coder for every program you use? I surely don't.

Besides, even if sol revealed anything, it could all be a lie. Heck, I could've lied too and said my name was something it's not. For all you know, I'm some Klingon or Vulcan in outer space. Or not. ;-)

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 13:11

@ Rugxulo

Useless to argue

> Is sol really taking advantage of you, misleading you, hurting you by not
> revealing his true birth name? Doubt it.

He's a mental child, there's no "reason" comprehensible for a sound brain. I guess he's somehow convinced that using the real name of one of his enemies in his posts might hurt more.

Who knows, perhaps it indeed does - by some kind of VooDoo magic? :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 21.11.2007, 13:17 @ Japheth	Useless to argue
	You don't understand. Read my other post, albeit I doubt you'll understand it too (or should I write "either" here?)

lucho

21.11.2007, 13:12

@ Rugxulo

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

Is he really a celebrity?!
Yes, their life is hard, but it's their choice to become celebrities.

If you're anonymously threatened like he did with me, wouldn't you want to know who did it?

And no, unlike professional liars like someone else here who admitted this, I'll always believe even my worst enemy if he says his real name - the only thing I want to know. I'm naive, I know, but that's how I've been grown up in socialism - a society much better than the capitalist jungle we're witnessing today here.

sol

21.11.2007, 16:29

@ lucho

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

> the only thing I want to know. I'm naive, I know, but that's how I've been
> grown up in socialism - a society much better than the capitalist jungle
> we're witnessing today here.

Socialist societies don't work - and they leech off the success of "capitalist society".

That's why you have "LZ-DOS" and "Pravetz-16" - both of which are Microsoft software renamed. Hell, "Pravetz-16" still has the Microsoft Copyright clause in it, it's more obvious than LZ-DOS.

As far as the loader goes - you can't just copy/paste a loader built into the MS-DOS kernel into your own independent kernel. It's a part of the kernel that was stolen. Who cares if the rest is stolen?

If you get a car named the "BulgariaCar" with the decals removed and the serial numbers filed off that says its 100% made in Bulgaria and you open up and find the engine has "Honda" written on it -- there's no need to prove anything else. You've already proven it was a lie.

lucho

21.11.2007, 18:20

@ sol

Pravetz-16, etc.

> Socialist societies don't work - and they leech off the success of "capitalist society".

I don't know what is "leech off", but socialist societies did work great for many decades and could continue to work, not only in Bulgaria but also in many other countries. The still work in some countries, with the due reforms. For the first time in human history, there was no hunger, no unemployment, no fear for tomorrow. But we allowed some traitors to climb to the top and they betrayed us.

> That's why you have "LZ-DOS" and "Pravetz-16" - both of which are
> Microsoft software renamed. Hell, "Pravetz-16" still has the Microsoft
> Copyright clause in it, it's more obvious than LZ-DOS.

Pravetz-16 is a computer, not a program. If you mean the P16DOS Assembler, the Microsoft copyright notice there is from the run-time library of the Microsoft C compiler, which was used to compile the executable file, and is by no means an indication that the program itself was written by Micrisoft. You should have known this if you've worked with this compiler. In general, most compilers' run-time libraries leave their "stamp" in the executable file.

> As far as the loader goes - you can't just copy/paste a loader built into
> the MS-DOS kernel into your own independent kernel. It's a part of the
> kernel that was stolen. Who cares if the rest is stolen?

First, let me repeat that I don't accept the word "stolen" to be applied for software. Second, the loader is just the second part of the boot record and doesn't do anything special. So it's possible to "inject" it into the kernel.

> If you get a car named the "BulgariaCar" with the decals removed and the
> serial numbers filed off that says its 100% made in Bulgaria and you open
> up and find the engine has "Honda" written on it -- there's no need to
> prove anything else. You've already proven it was a lie.

There is no car or any other machine completely made in a particular country anymore. For example, the aforementioned Pravetz-16 was made in Bulgaria, but many parts were made in the USSR and other countries, some even imported from the West, circumventing your embargoes. So we can say "assembled in Bulgaria" but not really "100% made in Bulgaria". When you see a label "made in XYZ" on any machine, you surely know that it really means "assembled in XYZ" instead. Anyway, nowadays everything is made in China, and Bulgaria missed its chance.

RayeR

CZ,
21.11.2007, 18:45

@ lucho

Pravetz-16, etc.

> I don't know what is "leech off", but socialist societies did work great
> for many decades and could continue to work, not only in Bulgaria but also
> in many other countries. The still work in some countries, with the due
> reforms. For the first time in human history, there was no hunger, no
> unemployment, no fear for tomorrow. But we allowed some traitors to climb
> to the top and they betrayed us.

Hm, I wouldn'd so glorify the socialism and communism. I don't know about specific system in Bulgaria but it brings also a lot of pain and hopeless to many people. In the latest years was seen a decadence all around and comming the need of change. There was some attemps to reform but came too late to take effect. Of course it was not pure black for all there was some advantages you said but I wouldn't want to return to that old days.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

lucho

21.11.2007, 19:11

@ RayeR

1980s

Indeed, during the 1980s, the decadence took place, because, as you say, the reforms hadn't started on time. The Soviet leadership wasn't on par with its time. They didn't understand even their own society, let alone the world. So they allowed the traitors to climb to the top, masked under false words.

But we went too much off topic. This forum is about DOS, not about politics, sociology, economy, history, ideology, etc.

RayeR

CZ,
22.11.2007, 00:58

@ lucho

1980s

> But we went too much off topic. This forum is about DOS, not about
> politics, sociology, economy, history, ideology, etc.

Maybe OT, but it was not me who flooded this thread by huge exceeding OT discusion. Wasn't previous 100 threads about the same war enough? (this is not pointed to your person only but others here).

I only expected that someone wrote:
Yes, LZ-DOS dualboot works for me it's your problem or no, it doesn't work it's common. I don't need to discuss bootmanagers its another theme.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

Steve

US,
22.11.2007, 05:35

@ lucho

Pravetz-16, etc.

> > Socialist societies don't work - and they leech off the success of
> "capitalist society".
>
> I don't know what is "leech off",

Leech = a small bloodsucking amimal
Leech off = suck the blood out of another organism, as a leech would

> but socialist societies did work great for many decades

More proof that you have a sense of humor.

> > That's why you have "LZ-DOS" and "Pravetz-16" - both of which are
> > Microsoft software renamed. Hell, "Pravetz-16" still has the Microsoft
> > Copyright clause in it, it's more obvious than LZ-DOS.
>
> Pravetz-16 is a computer, not a program. If you mean the P16DOS Assembler,
> the Microsoft copyright notice there is from the run-time library of the
> Microsoft C compiler, which was used to compile the executable file, and
> is by no means an indication that the program itself was written by
> Micrisoft. You should have known this if you've worked with this compiler.
> In general, most compilers' run-time libraries leave their "stamp" in the
> executable file.

Another one of your favorite jokes: Change the subject rather than respond to the real point. "Pravets-16 DOS Macro Assembler" has the internal and external IDs "MASM". Which compiler library put it there? If not placed by the library, and not really MASM, then it's a countefeit.

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 13:02

@ Rugxulo

Saul Hudson -- nice guy

Ever heard of him? He's quite famous. He's very talented. And it's not a big secret who he really is. In fact, I've known his "truename" for years. Do I feel any better now with such massive knowledge? No, not at all. And he just wrote a book, but I'm not too horribly interested (at least, not enough to buy the book, heh). Still, his work speaks for itself, can't complain. See the point? You don't need to know, it makes no difference. ;-)

EDIT: I guess I should explain that this was an example. sol is surely NOT Saul Hudson. (Although that'd be cool, heh.)

lucho 21.11.2007, 13:26 @ Rugxulo	Book author?
	If he really wrote a book (albeit I doubt), that would surely make a difference.

Rugxulo Usono, 22.11.2007, 14:59 @ lucho	Book author?
	> If he really wrote a book (albeit I doubt), that would surely make a > difference. AFAIK, sol is not known for his text composing. He's just a normal schmoe like the rest of us, I guess.

Japheth

Germany (South),
19.11.2007, 22:41

@ sol

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> It's bad enough to be copying other people's software when they don't want
> you to, but to be removing credit? That's pretty low.

LZ-DOS *is* MS-DOS, and this issue has been "discussed" already in the EDR-DOS forum one and a half year ago:

http://www.drdosprojects.de/forum/drp_forum/posts/1008.html

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 20.11.2007, 08:06 @ Japheth	LZ-DOS 7.1
	Where the Evil Doctor epithetes remained? All this probably sounds to the outside watcher like a quarrel of waifs over a piece of junk in the recycle bin.

Japheth

Germany (South),
20.11.2007, 08:57
(edited by Japheth, 20.11.2007, 09:19)

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1

Do you have any idea what "to keep one's word" means, hypo?

I'm refering to Message from Udo Kuhnt. See you later on his forum!

Don't tell us any bullshit that you were forced to defend ... bla bla bla

P.S: I really wonder whether you have permission from your master to post here again. After that desaster you caused recently, making him loose a battle. I hope he has - at least - degraded you to a simple soldier.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 20.11.2007, 09:26 @ Japheth	The pot calls the kettle black
	I had to dispel the disinformation. If you don't want me here delete my account. Are you trying to teach me lessons, you who tried thrice to circumvent Udo's ban on his forum - the last time with the schizophrenic post quoted below: > Posted by: Japheth. 11/18/2007, 21:13:27 > Maybe you have to try my own EMM386 ha ha ha. > Related link: http://japheth.de So shut up, schizo!

Japheth

Germany (South),
20.11.2007, 10:22

@ lucho

The pot calls the kettle black

> I had to dispel the disinformation.

I see, you have NO idea what "to keep one's word" does mean. Let me tell you that this is also regarded as being DISHONORABLE, like theft, hypocrisy, cowardness, slander, self-righteousness. Ok, I know you won't care, it's just for the record.

> If you don't want me here delete my account.

I agree, that sounds like a good idea.

> Are you trying to teach me lessons, you who tried thrice to
> circumvent Udo's ban on his forum - the last time with the schizophrenic
> post quoted below:
>
> > Posted by: Japheth. 11/18/2007, 21:13:27
> > Maybe you have to try my own EMM386 ha ha ha.
> > Related link: http://japheth.de

I see you are an expert in psychiatric diagnosis.

> So shut up, schizo!

IIRC there is no forum rule which tells that people with mental illness aren't allowed to post here. Else most members of the "Ellis gang" would have violated this rule.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

20.11.2007, 13:18

@ Japheth

The pot calls the kettle black

> I see, you have NO idea what "to keep one's word" does mean. Let me tell
> you that this is also regarded as being DISHONORABLE, like theft,
> hypocrisy, cowardness, slander, self-righteousness. Ok, I know you won't
> care, it's just for the record.

Because I know that the above was written by a schizo, I don't care, indeed.

> > If you don't want me here delete my account.
>
> I agree, that sounds like a good idea.

Then do it, what are you waiting for?

> IIRC there is no forum rule which tells that people with mental illness
> aren't allowed to post here. Else most members of the "Ellis gang" would
> have violated this rule.

We're not a gang but the Five of Good. As for you Gang of Four, you're the top violator, indeed.

Japheth

Germany (South),
20.11.2007, 14:05

@ lucho

"Five of Good" - agreed

> We're not a gang but the Five of Good. As for you Gang of Four, you're the
> top violator, indeed.

"The Five of Good" is indeed ways better than "Ellis gang", thanks! Btw, who is the fifth? Captured poor Udo?

---
MS-DOS forever!

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 09:43

@ Japheth

The pot calls the kettle black

>
> I see you are an expert in psychiatric diagnosis.
>
> > So shut up, schizo!
>
> IIRC there is no forum rule which tells that people with mental illness
> aren't allowed to post here. Else most members of the "Ellis gang" would
> have violated this rule.

Mental illness also contains "depression". And that ain't no fun (runs in my family, sadly). There was actually an Indian priest [Catholic] who they called "Fr. Tony 2" (already had a Father Tony here, heh) who came to town recently who told the story of his vocation: his mother died, and that caused his brother (Joseph, IIRC) to get so sick / depressed :no: that he had to enter a hospital. Somehow, he ran into (future beatified) Mother Theresa, who said, "God has healed your brother, and He wishes you to be a priest to serve the mentally ill" (although it took a while for him to accept that).

Both my brother and I (coincidentally also named Anthony and Joseph) understand the mess that is depression. Please, have compassion for each other and be nice. Anger is indeed the flipside of depression, and neither is particularly "good" (or useful, anyways). Whatever issues we argue about aren't of much importance. Remember, "a light-hearted man has a continual feast". Be happy if you can! Play some Dungeon Crawl (okay, might be a bit frustrating, but heck, if you need an outlet, try bashing a few orcs and kobolds). ;-)

---
Know your limits.h

lucho 21.11.2007, 10:18 @ Rugxulo	Depression
	I'm sorry to hear that your family suffered. There's too much pain in this world...

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 10:19

@ Rugxulo

The pot calls the kettle black

Thanks for your efforts, Rugxulo, but they are useless. Indeed, someone who shows his contempt for mentally ill persons with a sentence like "So shut up, schizo!" is such a stupid that there is absolutely no base for any kind of intelligent conversation IMO.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 21.11.2007, 10:25 @ Japheth	The pot calls the kettle black
	My "schizo" was just a reply to your "hypo". If you're really ill, don't waste time here but take treatment!

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 10:42

@ lucho

The pot calls the kettle black

> My "schizo" was just a reply to your "hypo".

Sure, hypo.

A hint: do some more of these "ha ha ha" kind of posts in the EDR-DOS ("Evil DoctoR") forum with the "Japheth." ID. This will drastically increase your credibility. But first convince Udo not to remove them so quickly, I was unable to find the one there which you were referring to in one of your recent posts.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 21.11.2007, 11:05 @ Japheth	Udo confirmed it was you
	> A hint: do some more of these "ha ha ha" kind of posts in the EDR-DOS > ("Evil DoctoR") forum with the "Japheth." ID. This will drastically > increase your credibility. But first convince Udo not to remove them so > quickly, I was unable to find the one there which you were referring to in > one of your recent posts. Although I didn't believe it was really you, Udo had managed to confirm this.

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 12:43

@ lucho

The FOG is speaking

> Although I didn't believe it was really you, Udo had managed to confirm
> this.

Ah yes, that's indeed a proof and convinces me. But an innocent question: hasn't poor Udo become recently a member of your famous FOG ("Five Of Goods")?

:-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Steve US, 21.11.2007, 13:28 @ Japheth	The FOG is speaking
	> But an innocent question: > hasn't poor Udo become recently a member of your famous FOG ("Five Of > Goods")? I was only wondering "Good what?" and didn't notice that nice FOG. I've now stopped wondering. Danke schön.

lucho

21.11.2007, 13:42

@ Japheth

Five of Good vs. Gang of Four

> Ah yes, that's indeed a proof and convinces me. But an innocent question:
> hasn't poor Udo become recently a member of your famous FOG ("Five Of Goods")?

Five of Good, not goods. Does Gang of Four (GOF) sound better? Note that the initial letters are in reverse order, which is quite symbolic. Aramazd vs. Ahriman.

About your question, ask him. But, ah, I forgot that you're banned from his forum. (Who is the poor one now?)

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 14:05

@ lucho

2 innocent questions

> About your question, ask him.

But IIRC it's you who's continuously pressing other members to reveal their true names, so - at the very least - don't you think that you should give a good example and reveal the members of your "group"? The good ones have nothing to fear. :-D

> But, ah, I forgot that you're banned from his forum. (Who is the poor one now?)

If you believe that it is quite extraordinary important to be a member of the "Evil DoctoR" forum, then why do you spent all your time here and not there?

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

21.11.2007, 14:44

@ Japheth

2 innocent questions

> But IIRC it's you who's continuously pressing other members to reveal
> their true names, so - at the very least - don't you think that you should
> give a good example and reveal the members of your "group"? The good ones
> have nothing to fear. :-D

You already know our names.

> If you believe that it is quite extraordinary important to be a member of
> the "Evil DoctoR" forum, then why do you spent all your time here and not there?

First, the disinformation was here, so I had to reply here. Then I was attacked, threatened, and so on.

Second, you ask me questions and because you're banned from Udo's forum, I do you the courtesy to come to your forum and reply you.

Third, unlike you, I don't spend all my time here.

Fourth, please stop calling EDR-DOS "Evil Doctor", because I can invent a much worse name for your forum or for your JEMM. Don't challenge me!

Steve

US,
21.11.2007, 14:56

@ lucho

2 innocent questions

> First, the disinformation was here, so I had to reply here. Then I was
> attacked, threatened, and so on.

Does that mean you would approve if I went to the EDR forum to respond to this message you posted there?

[Begin]
If you take a look at what happens on the BTTR forum now, you will see terrible things. The only person that has been banned from the Udo's forum, and for a good reason, has been given administrator rights there and has started not only to delete other's posts but even to post false posts in the name of other people (I don't know the right English name for this act!). I mean Mr. Andreas Grech, of course. Plus, there are other 2 "trolls" there (one of whom has even come here, named with the Spanish word for Sun; expect trouble from him!). Anyway, as R. Riebisch refused to remove his links to Jack's drivers, Jack was forced to ask Johnson to remove the ZIP file from his site. As you can see, now Udo's forum remains the only safe place to post and discuss DOS issues indeed.
[End]

This forum was safe for a little while, until you returned. What happened? You got bored by the lack of reaction at EDR to your attacks on people here?

lucho

21.11.2007, 15:34

@ Steve

2 innocent questions

> Does that mean you would approve if I went to the EDR forum to respond to
> this message you posted there?

You don't need my approval. If you want, go there and respond to that post.

> This forum was safe for a little while, until you returned. What happened?
> You got bored by the lack of reaction at EDR to your attacks on people here?

I already answered this question. Don't call my defence "attacks".

There are two alternate ways to prevent forever the nightmare of me coming here:

1. No attacks on anything that Jack, I or anyone else from our Five of Good does.
2. My removal from your users list.

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 17:45

@ lucho

None selected

> There are two alternate ways to prevent forever the nightmare of me coming
> here:
>
> 1. No attacks on anything that Jack, I or anyone else from our Five of
> Good does.
> 2. My removal from your users list.

I'm choosing none of those. Please continue to come here! As far as I am concerned, I promise to continue to "attack" you :-D . I like nightmares. :-D :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Steve

US,
21.11.2007, 17:58

@ Japheth

None selected

> > There are two alternate ways to prevent forever the nightmare of me
> > coming here:
> >
> > 1. No attacks on anything that Jack, I or anyone else from our Five of
> > Good does.
> > 2. My removal from your users list.
>
> I'm choosing none of those. Please continue to come here! As far as I am
> concerned, I promise to continue to "attack" you :-D . I like nightmares.
> :-D :-D

I too will continue attacking, because:
a) I can't fulfill either of the two conditions, even if I want to,
and
b) In fact I like Lucho, and want him to be happy here, not bored by the safety of the EDR forum.

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 15:38

@ lucho

... the game must go on ...

> You already know our names.

Yes, but I still had some doubts because I simply can't imagine that someone deliberately joins such a group of fools (no offense :-D ).

> First, the disinformation was here, so I had to reply here. Then I was
> attacked, threatened, and so on.

Yes, the "Unschuld Vom Lande" was attacked again, as usual, by the evil ones. But courage, I'm sure, the millions of DOS users who silently read this forum are on YOUR side and will eventually condemn US.

---
MS-DOS forever!

Matjaz Maribor, Slovenia, 21.11.2007, 19:14 @ Japheth	... the game must go on ...
	> Yes, the "Unschuld Vom Lande" was attacked again, as usual, by the evil > ones. But courage, I'm sure, the millions of DOS users who silently read > this forum are on YOUR side and will eventually condemn US. Well... I read the forum... Silently too. But I am not impressed by Lucho. Not impressed by you either. But you at least have a sense of humor On whose side does that put me?

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 19:39

@ Matjaz

A small riddle

> On whose side does that put me?

I'm only interested in intelligent supporters.

If you can solve the following riddle, you are on my side, else on lucho's:

Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?

- W
- Y
- Z

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 21.11.2007, 20:06 @ Japheth	Farewell!
	> > On whose side does that put me? > > I'm only interested in intelligent supporters. > > If you can solve the following riddle, you are on my side, else on > lucho's: > > Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why? > > - W > - Y > - Z "W", because it's out of alphabetical order. It must be changed to "X" to fit. Farewell!

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 20:30

@ lucho

Failed!

> "W", because it's out of alphabetical order. It must be changed to "X" to
> fit.

Failed! You must support yourself, sorry! :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Matjaz Maribor, Slovenia, 21.11.2007, 20:19 @ Japheth	A small riddle
	> Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why? > > - W > - Y > - Z I would say Y. When you write W or Z (CAPITAL LETTERS) you don't need to lift your pen - you can write them in one line.

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 20:26

@ Matjaz

Solved!

> > Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?
> >
> > - W
> > - Y
> > - Z
> I would say Y. When you write W or Z (CAPITAL LETTERS) you don't need to
> lift your pen - you can write them in one line.

Y is correct. Your explanation is totally different to what I had in mind, but it is reasonable. You're on my side. Congrats! :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Matjaz Maribor, Slovenia, 21.11.2007, 20:37 @ Japheth	Solved!
	> Y is correct. Your explanation is totally different to what I had in mind, > but it is reasonable. You're on my side. Congrats! Thanx. I guess lawyers and programmers dont think in the same way What is the explanation you had in mind?

Japheth

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 22:07

@ Matjaz

Solved!

> What is the explanation you had in mind?

I thought of 2 acceptable explanations

1. W and Z can be transformed to another character of the latin alphabet by rotation
2. W and Z are bosons which mediate the weak force

I have to admit, though, that your explanation is the best because it would be comprehensible even to an alien which has no knowledge of human science or alphabets.

---
MS-DOS forever!

Rugxulo

Usono,
22.11.2007, 14:56

@ Japheth

Solved??

> > What is the explanation you had in mind?
>
> I thought of 2 acceptable explanations
>
> 1. W and Z can be transformed to another character of the latin alphabet
> by rotation
> 2. W and Z are bosons which mediate the
> weak force
>
> I have to admit, though, that your explanation is the best because it
> would be comprehensible even to an alien which has no knowledge of human
> science or alphabets.

There are other potential differences:

= Y is sometimes considered a vowel: "A,E,I,O,U and sometimes Y".
= W is not part of the original Roman alphabet (which lacked J, U, W). In such cases, you had to use I or V (despite what some Latin textbooks would have you believe).

And, actually, you speak German, no? I know almost nothing about it, but isn't W pronounced like English V and Z like English TS ("Mot-sart")? And yet, Y is (probably?) pronounced the same in both (Germanic languages), right?.

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 10:51

@ lucho

a one man play ... no, not about my hooha

4DOS: Why do you hate me?
JEMMEX: You're 16-bit, you stink!
4DOS: Shouldn't 8086s be allowed to have fun?
JEMMEX: Only virtual ones!
UMBPCI: I don't need V86.
JEMMEX: Or EMS, apparently. Some of us still like playing BioMenace.
UMBPCI: Yeah, good point.
4DOS: goto shell
JEMMEX: Exception 06, Press Esc to continue ...
CRAWL: Your +1, +0 hand axe gets eaten away!
WASM: Invalid operand.
UIDE: (cache cache cache)
MPXPLAY: "I'm not ... that ... innocent!"
FREECOM: What's a .BTM?
METAKERN: BeaTs Me. Press 0 to boot from HD.
P7ZIP: (compress compress compress)
INFOZIP: Hey, you compressed better than me, you @$#@$! But I'm faster.
P7ZIP: Sorry, I'm just trying to squeeze that extra byte for those floppies.
UIDES: Me too!
UIDE: Junior, don't play, there's caching to be done.
UIDES: Sorry.
CRAWL: You are confused.
LINUX: What, somebody still using 16-bit code?
WINDOWS: What, somebody writing their own OS?
INTEL: Hey, why aren't you all using SSE4 yet?
AMD: Don't you mean x86-64?
FREEDOS: Hey, you banished V86 mode in 64-bit long mode!
DOSEMU: Don't worry, I can emulate it.
DOSBOX: I only run games.
BIOMENACE: What else is there?
FASMD: Editing / Coding?
LINUX: Configuring servers?
BSD: Rewriting everything into a freer license (but ironically using GCC)
GCC: I only run on real OSes.
DJGPP: I can run on fast / lean / mean OSes.
FREEDOS: Hey, I'm fast / lean and "free"! Please love me!
EDRDOS: It's pronounced "Dee Ar". It ain't like Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man.
PCDOS: You're not my dad??
EDRDOS: PC, I am not your father.
PCDOS: Nooooooo.
ROMDOS: 186 required. (shl ax,4 ... how can you live without it??)
LINUX: What's a 186?
FREEDOS: What's a GNU?
GNU: Not Unix.
FREEDOS: I can run bash.
CRAWL: Trog says, "Smite them all!"
FDAPM: Don't forget to save some energy.
LINUX: Isn't ACPI used nowadays?
FDAPM: Isn't Vista used nowadays?
LINUX: ...
VISTA: 32 MB of DPMI should be enough for everyone.
FREEDOS: And I thought I was FAT.
VISTA: "Not a Truly Fat System" (NTFS) like me. Intel loves me.
INTEL: (money money money) Uh, SSE4 anyone?
AMD: We invented the "mov rax,1"
MICROSOFT: We invented the file. Pay us. Lots.
UNIX: What are we, chopped liver?
MULTICS: Hey, I'm finally free! Freeeeeee!
MINIX: Join the club. It's fun.
LINUX: I am the free-est.
GNU: Don't forget me, Linux.
LINUX: Forget who?
HURD: So ... weak. Barely ... working.
NETBSD: Anybody want some toast?
LINUX: (swap swap swap) Can't, Firefox is eating my breakfast.
FIREFOX: YouTube, lolorz! Gotta love that sleepy kitty!
GNASH: (grumble grumble) Is this really all a computer is good for?
MYLITTLEFORUM: Well, you can always argue who's right and wrong.
VISTA: And I thought I was counter-productive sometimes!
JEMMEX: I'm fast.
4DOS: I'm powerful.
bash: I'm POSIXly delicious.
DJGPP: bash, you still need lots of friends.
bash: True, what would I be without them?
DJGPP: Just a shell of a program?
NASM: Feel stronger! Must assemble!
INTEL: SSE4?
ALL: SHUT UP!

Berlin, Germany,
20.11.2007, 11:24

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> replacement for MS-DOS 7.1 and should be 100% compatible. It can boot my
> win98se well but it hangs when I try to boot previous DOS version (I have
> MS-DOS 7.1 and MS-DOS 6.22 on same partition) using the last startup menu
> item. It just displays "Starting previous LZ-DOS version..." (or similar)
> and hangs. So then is useless for me.

see DUAL-BOOT IN OSR2/WIN98

---
Forum admin

RayeR

CZ,
20.11.2007, 12:07

@ rr

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> see DUAL-BOOT IN
> OSR2/WIN98

I know this issue since 95 osr2 but this is not probably my cace. I have already working dualboot with MSDOS 7.1 and MSDOS 6.22. All I do was just boot MSDOS 7.1 and replace io.sys and command.com. Then I can always boot LZ-DOS 7.1 and Win98 but not MSDOS 6.22.

In case of crippled bootsector of 95 ors2 then I cannot boot anything, that's the difference. Do you managed to make working dulaboot with LZ-DOS?

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

lucho 20.11.2007, 13:27 @ RayeR	LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version
	> Do you managed to make working dulaboot with LZ-DOS? It's packed, so it'd be very difficult to do it. But what's the problem? You can always use a boot manager like the one from NT which you wrote me that you have.

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 09:15

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

> > Do you managed to make working dulaboot with LZ-DOS?
>
> It's packed, so it'd be very difficult to do it. But what's the problem?
> You can always use a boot manager like the one from NT which you wrote me
> that you have.

Don't forget two options (one really obvious):

* BTTR's BOOTMGR
* Smart Boot Manager (aka, BTMGR)

I haven't tested either (yet?), but that's because I only use DR-DOS (installed on my P166 w/ 32 MB RAM) and FreeDOS floppy bootdisks. Otherwise, I just stick to NTVDM (heh, sad but true) or, rarely, QEMU. Vista's 32 MB DPMI limit makes me feel right at home. :rotfl:

---
Know your limits.h

lucho 21.11.2007, 09:40 @ Rugxulo	Boot managers, Vista
	Yes, many boot managers exist. I use Eric Auer's METAKERN in my hex-boot disk. > Vista's 32 MB DPMI limit makes me feel right at home. Oh, you manage to run Vista?! No PC in our (computer science) department runs it, since even the newest we've got (2006) are not new enough. So I hadn't even seen it, until 2 of my students showed it on their portable PCs a few days ago!

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 09:57

@ lucho

Boot managers, Vista

> Yes, many boot managers exist. I use Eric Auer's METAKERN in my hex-boot
> disk.
>

Yes, I am well aware of Metakern, it's nice. But it's DOS/Win9x only, so others (Smart Boot Manager) are probably better if you have other types of OSes installed. (IIRC, you modified Metakern to support FreeBSD, no? I guess you use that too?)

> > Vista's 32 MB DPMI limit makes me feel right at home. :rotfl:
>
> Oh, you manage to run Vista?!

Preinstalled on my new laptop. I'm not savvy or gutsy or ambitious enough to "install" anything else on it (yet, stupid NTFS taking up the whole drive). Mostly have just tried a few liveCDs (or FreeDOS in QEMU since no floppy drive, doh! I think I need a USB floppy drive for Christmas, heh.)

> No PC in our (computer science) department
> runs it, since even the newest we've got (2006) are not new enough. So I
> hadn't even seen it, until 2 of my students showed it on their portable
> PCs a few days ago!

It's the video card plus the increased RAM requirements that put people off. Granted, I don't really endorse Vista, but it ain't really THAT bad. Yes, SP1 is in the works, and no, it probably won't fix everything. But whatever, ya gotta make do with what ya got. (I assume your computer lab runs XP then?) Actually, the latest thing is "quad core" (Intel's Core 2 Quad vs. "not as good" AMD Phenom). So I don't blame you (or whoever) for not upgrading, it always gets obsoleted eventually (sometimes quicker than others, ahem Sega 32x). I think things like SSE[234] is overkill for most people. But what did you really expect from such a "DOS luddite"? (redundant? :lol: )

FYI, I actually have been enjoying liveCDs, QEMU, and reading OS News these days. But my old P166 and 486 (plus frequent access to an XP machine w/ floppy drive) are good ways to "get my DOS on." :-D

>
> :-D

---
Know your limits.h

lucho 21.11.2007, 12:46 @ Rugxulo	METAKERN by Eric Auer
	> Yes, I am well aware of Metakern, it's nice. But it's DOS/Win9x only It can not only boot up to 6 kernels from floppy, but also any of the 4 primary partitions in the hard disk with any OS there, not only those whose filesystem's ID it recognises.

Rugxulo

Usono,
21.11.2007, 12:57

@ lucho

OS boot managers -- comparison requested

> > Yes, I am well aware of Metakern, it's nice. But it's DOS/Win9x only
>
> It can not only boot up to 6 kernels from floppy, but also any of the 4
> primary partitions in the hard disk with any OS there, not only those
> whose filesystem's ID it recognises.

I guess the real question is: what does BTTR's BOOTMGR (or whatever other similar util) do better? (I know Smart Boot Manager has themes, localization, can remember previous OS booted, and can boot CDs).

lucho 21.11.2007, 13:32 @ Rugxulo	OS boot managers -- comparison requested
	> I guess the real question is: what does BTTR's BOOTMGR (or whatever other > similar util) do better? (I know Smart Boot Manager has themes, > localization, can remember previous OS booted, and can boot CDs). BOOTMGR is much more advanced than METAKERN, but METAKERN is much smaller

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version (Miscellaneous)

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

Canadian

Canadian

Canadian

Canadian

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

SOL comes from StoOL-pigeon

SOL comes from StoOL-pigeon

"Forking" is much worse than copying

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1 *IS* MSDOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

I apologize.

I apologize.

anger shortens one's life

anger shortens one's life

anger shortens one's life

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

Useless to argue

Useless to argue

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

About the Best Kept Top Secret of this forum, again

Pravetz-16, etc.

Pravetz-16, etc.

1980s

1980s

Pravetz-16, etc.

Saul Hudson -- nice guy

Book author?

Book author?

LZ-DOS 7.1 & booting previous DOS version

LZ-DOS 7.1

LZ-DOS 7.1

The pot calls the kettle black

LZ-DOS 7.1 IS MSDOS 7.1