flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > OS Construction > No OS emulator?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Does anyone know of a program that would read a file or directory and attempt to run it (in it's own program) as if the OS weren't loaded? In other words, does anyone know a way to cheat out of having to shut down the computer and loading it up to debug a program that dosn't depend on an operating system (which would make changing the program alot easier for those who don't have another computer handy)?
Post 10 Dec 2006, 02:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rhyno_dagreat



Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 487
Location: Maryland, Unol Daleithiau
rhyno_dagreat
You could use BOCHs.
http://bochs.sourceforge.net/
Post 10 Dec 2006, 03:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hckr83



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: usa
hckr83
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..
Post 10 Dec 2006, 04:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
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.
Post 11 Dec 2006, 02:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:

Does anyone know of a program that would read a file or directory and

...

Complicated way to say: I need a full emulator of a 80386 like PC. Wink

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 Wink
- 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:

also you might try Microsoft Virtual PC..it provides an accurate, fast


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
Post 20 Dec 2006, 21:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
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:

Virtual PC Is Now Free!

Whether Microsoft virtualization technology is an important component of your existing infrastructure or you're just a Virtual PC enthusiast, you can now download Virtual PC 2004 absolutely free. Microsoft will also offer the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista, available in 2007.

Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 Systems Requirements
Post 20 Dec 2006, 23:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
I'd heard of QEMU running under HXRT on pure DOS


Right. Applies to BOCHS also. Smile

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 Very Happy

But newer >=80486 machines with >=32 MB RAM should be fine Wink

Quote:

Also, check this out:
Quote:

Virtual PC Is Now Free!


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
Post 21 Dec 2006, 00:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hckr83



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: usa
hckr83
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!
Post 26 Dec 2006, 01:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Dex4u



Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 1601
Location: web
Dex4u
hckr83 wrote:
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!


When your making your own OS, Dos is your friend, but XP is your enemy Wink.
Post 26 Dec 2006, 02:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
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!)
Post 26 Dec 2006, 05:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
rugxulo wrote:

so what else do you need? (Okay, yes, there could be more, but there could be FAR less!)

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... Smile


Last edited by f0dder on 26 Dec 2006, 23:59; edited 1 time in total
Post 26 Dec 2006, 23:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Dex4u



Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 1601
Location: web
Dex4u
@f0dder, I think you made a mistake on the quotes, i thing you should of been quoting rugxulo Smile.

PS: You can get stable NTFS access for Dos http://www.ntfs.com/products.htm
Post 26 Dec 2006, 23:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Oops - fixed Smile

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.
Post 27 Dec 2006, 00:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
Stable multitasking


Confused

Quote:
stable NTFS access


Confused

NTFS is a thing one should better never begin to deal with. Wink

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 ... Crying or Very sad

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 Very Happy

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 27 Dec 2006, 00:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hckr83



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: usa
hckr83
how about the retarded 8.3 names...

only djgpp for gcc which is super stupid at building..

and the no multitasking ...
Post 27 Dec 2006, 01:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
how about the retarded 8.3 names...


Did NOT read or NOT understand rugxulo's post Crying or Very sad

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 Embarassed

Quote:
and the no multitasking ...


This is a feature Wink

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 27 Dec 2006, 01:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hckr83



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: usa
hckr83
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
Post 27 Dec 2006, 02:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
hckr83 wrote:

how about the retarded 8.3 names...

only djgpp for gcc which is super stupid at building..

and the no multitasking ...


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:
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


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. Laughing
Post 27 Dec 2006, 02:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Japheth



Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Japheth
f0dder wrote:

stable NTFS access, better disk caching than smartdrv (and "that other diskcache I forgot the name of")


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.
Post 30 Dec 2006, 17:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
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.

Post "1.0", I'd also like to see more utilities to make it possible to replicate some of the advanced features we take for granted in modern operating systems, such as Linux. I want to revive GNUish and replicate a modern UNIX-like environment under DOS. I want DOS to be usable by everyone, not just DOS geeks. Linux users should feel at home. I'd like FreeDOS to appeal to Windows and Mac geeks, but for that we'd need to have a strong GUI. I'd like to see us push forward on one or two GUIs, and let that friendly competition drive new features. Sort of like how KDE and GNOME pushed each other to make the Linux desktop easier to use. I think we can do something like that for FreeDOS.


EDIT: 486th post! ... BSWAP, XADD, WBINVD ... Wink
Post 30 Dec 2006, 21:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.