MenuetOS has most things, and it takes up (last time i checked the binarys) 500kb.
But of course they use more RAM, the screen buffer will problably take up most space..

I'm more interested in running a pmode dos on even older hardware: 386/486 systems with maybe 2-4MB of RAM. My OS takes nearly a full meg now, but 767k of that is buffers used when compiling code (I compile everything except for the compiler itself on demand). Applications and drivers can allocate/change anything, so it's more a convience thing than an actual "reserved" area. Let the drivers create hooks to interrupts, and have an exit-but-do-not-free-memory function and you won't need a special reserved area of RAM

i agree with crc, but it's your os, and you are right, most people will not use old computers to run it. but it's cool to have it working at as many computers as possible.

I think there is a big miss understanding here, if you read what i put at the start of this topic, i just reserved a space to load things in that will not change much when running the OS,then the rest of ram is for program uses, which will be written over each time a new program is run.

What i should have said was 10% of total ram.

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

What are think about this?
DOS is alive

I use to think Dos was the best OS ever made for it's size, (no other os can do so much and fit on a floppy).
But as i started making my own OS, i now know that its BIOS that is so good and not Dos.

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

is xp using virtual 86 mode, or is it simulating in some other way?
i want dos compability for 16-bit programs (all old games.. ) in my OS...

Use freedos as the bootloader for programs like cdplayer ,dex, etc ,which can be run from freedos.
Because of the way i make them, they will boot from freedos and it also, runs all my old dos games.
The is size for this minmalist freedos is 100k, so there still space on the disk for your os.
Let me know if you want minmalist freedos to do the above, wish it was made in asm in stead of mostly C .

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

if i do write my own emulating code, i can send it to you.. i don't like the idea of using dos..

That my thoughts too, make it your self, so you know how it works.
Here are some examples for emulating dos int's
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=1836

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

nothing wrong with dos i like it I also like the DOS NAVIGATOR interface I think it is realy efficiant I would like to more thoroughly understand the code
does anyone here have any ideas? here are the sources


http://www.ritlabs.com/dn/

here is another one that is a little better in some respects

http://ftp.kiarchive.ru/pub/msdos/?search=cn

Dos is so good, they are sell it with new PC .
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/12/10/1819249.shtml?tid=173&tid=137

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

hehe, i don't think microsoft will like that. as they are doing a silly campaign against pirated copys of windows, with a budget version of xp (limited to three open programs)..

this will just make even more people to get a pirate copy of xp.
btw: my xp is licenced to: "Christoffer Bubach, Hackz and Crackz Corp" :-p

Exactly my opinion. I started assembly with DOS and it was greatest part of learning coding. Looking at utils & hacks which place code into stack, encryptors, polymorphic stealth viruses, soft-ice etc. Not like in pmode ring3 where you can't do nothing except hand-compiling HLL style code (not really, but much likely to it)

therer are some security holes even in XP that allows a user program to enter kernel mode
but this shouldn't be used, because viruses are not nice things.

There was a DOS OS anmed StormDOS....I think it was full featured...Search at SF.

So how many of you would use a pmode Dos with up to 4GB of memory, but with all Dos functions, with modern drivers eg: USB etc, and that does not run on top of windows, ??????????.

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

i would..

Me too.

Absolutely, me tohohohohoooo