Index
> OS Construction > No OS emulator?Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
rhyno_dagreat 10 Dec 2006, 03:25
You could use BOCHs.
http://bochs.sourceforge.net/ |
|||
10 Dec 2006, 03:25 |
|
|
hckr83 10 Dec 2006, 04:41
yea... Bochs is good, also you might try Microsoft Virtual PC..it provides an accurate, fast emulation, but no debugging stuff..
eventually I may be able to tell you to try my emulator, but as of now it's useless.. |
|||
|
10 Dec 2006, 04:41 |
|
|
kohlrak 11 Dec 2006, 02:26
downloaded bochs. Having trouble getting it to work from guessing, but it'll be no problem after i actually read the documents that come with it. XD That's why they distribute them.
|
|||
|
11 Dec 2006, 02:26 |
|
|
DOS386 20 Dec 2006, 21:39
Quote:
... Complicated way to say: I need a full emulator of a 80386 like PC. 
I recommend BOCHS and QEMU, both free and open source, both working ON DOS: BOCHS: + reliable + configurable + generous debug features - very slow (factor cca 100), but this might be a feature when starting OS devel
- mouse does not work in BOCHS on DOS QEMU: + quite reliable + fast (slow down factor cca 10) - poor PS/2 emulation, results in kbd and mouse problems Quote:
I wouldn't. Same applies to WMwarez: - Neither free nor open source - Inacceptable download size of 20 and 150 MB (!) - XP only, does not work on DOS _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
20 Dec 2006, 21:39 |
|
|
rugxulo 20 Dec 2006, 23:25
I'd heard of QEMU running under HXRT on pure DOS, but I think you need lots of memory (e.g., 128 MB), which isn't exactly common with so-called DOS machines.
Also, check this out: Quote:
|
|||
|
20 Dec 2006, 23:25 |
|
|
DOS386 21 Dec 2006, 00:45
Quote: I'd heard of QEMU running under HXRT on pure DOS Right. Applies to BOCHS also. 
Quote: but I think you need lots of memory (e.g., 128 MB), which isn't exactly common with so-called DOS machines. Well, the oldest DOS machines with <8MB are probably bad, not to talk about 8086 ones with 512 KB RAM 
But newer >=80486 machines with >=32 MB RAM should be fine
Quote:
OK, this statement is not new for me ... but I am *always* sceptical when seeing the words "free" and "microsoft" too near each other ... The system requirements are inacceptable, and the examples as well (No "OS" besides "Windows" and (originating from M$ and now dead) OS\2). And the RAM values are highly underestimated (will maybe run, but horribly slowly because "RAM" will be mostly redirected to swap file). _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
21 Dec 2006, 00:45 |
|
|
hckr83 26 Dec 2006, 01:59
Quote: XP only, does not work on DOS who in their right mind develops an OS in dos anyway!?? now somehting like "xp only, does not work in *nix" maybe but DOS! |
|||
|
26 Dec 2006, 01:59 |
|
|
Dex4u 26 Dec 2006, 02:13
hckr83 wrote:
When your making your own OS, Dos is your friend, but XP is your enemy . |
|||
|
26 Dec 2006, 02:13 |
|
|
rugxulo 26 Dec 2006, 05:24
DOS can do almost anything any other OS does (Pmode, LFN, multitasking, emulation, DLLs, graphical shells). Note: I am not referring exclusively to the MS variant. What exactly do you wish to do that you can't do in DOS? You can debug Pmode-to-Real-Mode switching apps, use two monitors, use VESA for stuff, run QEMU or BOCHS, boot other OSes, emulate various machines/OSes, etc.
You've got DOSLFN, HXRT, PythonD, a billion emulators, GCC (G++, GPC, GNAT, GFortran) and GDB, OpenWatcom, VIM, GNU Emacs, RHIDE, 386SWAT, GRDB, DEB16F/DEB32F, so what else do you need? (Okay, yes, there could be more, but there could be FAR less!) |
|||
|
26 Dec 2006, 05:24 |
|
|
f0dder 26 Dec 2006, 23:17
rugxulo wrote:
Stable multitasking, stable NTFS access, better disk caching than smartdrv (and "that other diskcache I forgot the name of") and system stability (protection) in general... Last edited by f0dder on 26 Dec 2006, 23:59; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
26 Dec 2006, 23:17 |
|
|
Dex4u 26 Dec 2006, 23:37
@f0dder, I think you made a mistake on the quotes, i thing you should of been quoting rugxulo
.
PS: You can get stable NTFS access for Dos http://www.ntfs.com/products.htm |
|||
|
26 Dec 2006, 23:37 |
|
|
f0dder 27 Dec 2006, 00:01
Oops - fixed
Hm, that site has a "NTFS reader" - doesn't seem to have anything with full read/write and "show up as drive" support? I also dunno how stable those kinds of products are, a friend of mine lost a bunch of data with the "NTFS for win9x" thing by (iirc) sysinternals. |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 00:01 |
|
|
DOS386 27 Dec 2006, 00:20
Quote: Stable multitasking 
Quote: stable NTFS access
NTFS is a thing one should better never begin to deal with.
Quote: better disk caching than smartdrv Obsolete. Quote: (and "that other diskcache I forgot the name of") LBAcache ? No touch with DOS since >=10 years ? Quote: and system stability (protection) From what ? The absence of multitasking or NTFS could be considered as a feature of DOS ... if you add really everything found in latest Vista or latest "KDE" or what it is to DOS you get just another 10 GB bloat ... 
Last but not least, this was about OS Construction ... if you want to code the most complicated and bloated OS, you will fail anyway ... you lack the development capacity and the market is oversaturated with such stuff already _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 00:20 |
|
|
hckr83 27 Dec 2006, 01:26
how about the retarded 8.3 names...
only djgpp for gcc which is super stupid at building.. and the no multitasking ... |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 01:26 |
|
|
DOS386 27 Dec 2006, 01:39
Quote: how about the retarded 8.3 names... Did NOT read or NOT understand rugxulo's post
Quote: only djgpp for gcc which is super stupid at building.. That's DGJPP's maintainers fault ... since they stopped DOS support immediately after Windoze 95 crashed out 
Quote: and the no multitasking ... This is a feature _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 01:39 |
|
|
hckr83 27 Dec 2006, 02:04
Quote: This is a feature Wink only sometimes... if only their was an OS that you could "disable" multitasking, yet still support it.. or support something like "application-pausing" when I need to perform calculations that take a while I will usually put it into my kernel... makes it quite a bit faster |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 02:04 |
|
|
rugxulo 27 Dec 2006, 02:47
hckr83 wrote:
DOSLFN supports LFNs in pure DOS. Not sure what you mean about DJGPP (super stupid at building?!), but it does natively support LFNs (if available) these days. hckr83 wrote:
DR-DOS (not free) can disable its multitasking (you can load or unload it via SETUP or manually). Also, "application-pausing" sounds like task switching (which is also supported in DR-DOS and even MS-DOS w/ DOSSHELL). Other multitasking is usually found via Desqview (never tried it), TriDOS (only works for small ASM proggies), Win 3.x (the most famous "shell"??), or something else (e.g., multithreading in Ruby). BTW, there are programs that allow you to (sometimes) break out of a (uncomplicated) hanging program (ESC3, HBREAK). If you want more protection, you'd best write with DJGPP (or similar). Yes, with great power comes great responsibility.  |
|||
|
27 Dec 2006, 02:47 |
|
|
Japheth 30 Dec 2006, 17:13
f0dder wrote:
best disk cache to load with modern SATA drives is possibly no cache at all. In any case, f0dder, Smartdrv is not the "bleeding edge" of DOS disk caches. And why should "stable NTFS access" be a necessary or even wanted feature for anything outside the MS Windows world? > and system stability (protection) in general... Well, there are two sides of the coin ... sometimes stability has a high priority, but sometimes it might preferable to have direct hardware access available. |
|||
|
30 Dec 2006, 17:13 |
|
|
rugxulo 30 Dec 2006, 21:58
Japheth wrote: In any case, f0dder, Smartdrv is not the "bleeding edge" of DOS disk caches. There is still a misconception that "DOS" refers to MS-DOS (which hasn't been developed past 1994 ... unless you count Win9x/WinME, which I don't). Anyways, for most people today, DOS should probably mean FreeDOS (since it's freely available), and that means you're using LBACACHE/TICKLE (as mentioned already). Japheth wrote: And why should "stable NTFS access" be a necessary or even wanted feature for anything outside the MS Windows world? I think people want to be able to access files on their NTFS partition within DOS. But, no, otherwise you wouldn't want NTFS support (although people whine that FAT sucks and fragments too easily). Jim Hall's vision for the future of FreeDOS includes many things not normally imagined for DOS: Jim Hall wrote: For example: I really want to extend what DOS means. Multitasking, flat memory, etc. EDIT: 486th post! ... BSWAP, XADD, WBINVD ... |
|||
|
30 Dec 2006, 21:58 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|