4DOS is now freeware
Joe Caverly
Visit http://www.jpsoft.com/download.htm#free to download a copy of
4DOS, which is now freeware.
Older copies of 4DOS can be downloaded from ftp://jpsoft.com/oldver/
Note also that Take Command/16, which was previously freeware, is no
longer available for download, nor is it listed on the site.
Joe
Mike Bessy
*shareware* version. The *free* 4DOS 7.50.130 is
"ftp://jpsoft.com/beta/4dos750.exe". You probably want the latter.
>> From Joe Caverly on 8/24/2004 6:45 AM:
--
-----------------
Mike Bessy
bi...@starband.net
http://mike.computerMDonline.com/
_________________
Stan Brown
>> From Joe Caverly on 8/24/2004 6:45 AM:
>*shareware* version. The *free* 4DOS 7.50.130 is
>"ftp://jpsoft.com/beta/4dos750.exe". You probably want the latter.
They seem to have fixed it now, though the text still references
build 129.
[Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
<http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"You want an intelligent conversation? Do what I do: talk to
yourself. It's the only way." -- /Torch Song Trilogy/
Mike Bessy
ask for posting help if I get confused.
[ Now I remember why I never cared much for this ng and some of its
"helpful" participants... :-) ]
>> From Stan Brown on 8/24/2004 4:31 PM:
>
> They seem to have fixed it now, though the text still references
> build 129.
>
> [Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
> <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
>
--
Stan Brown
Does anybody know where there's a revision history? I downloaded
7.50 but couldn't find any "what's new" or revision history in the
help file.
Right now I've got 6.02B (paid for). Filename completion doesn't
work if the path is an environment variable. I thought this bug was
fixed in 4DOS 7, but apparently it was not. Example:
set h=c:\windows\tempor~1
and then type the command
edit %h\
and hit the Tab key repeatedly. I should cycle through the filenames
in that directory, but 4DOS 7.50 just beeps at me as 4DOS 6.02 did.
Steve Fábián
news:MPG.1b9593715...@news.odyssey.net...
> "Joe Caverly" <jlcav...@yahoo.ca> wrote in comp.os.msdos.4dos:
> > Visit http://www.jpsoft.com/download.htm#free to download a copy of
> >4DOS, which is now freeware.
>
> Does anybody know where there's a revision history? I downloaded
> 7.50 but couldn't find any "what's new" or revision history in the
> help file.
>
> Right now I've got 6.02B (paid for). Filename completion doesn't
> work if the path is an environment variable. I thought this bug was
> fixed in 4DOS 7, but apparently it was not. Example:
> set h=c:\windows\tempor~1
> and then type the command
> edit %h\
> and hit the Tab key repeatedly. I should cycle through the filenames
> in that directory, but 4DOS 7.50 just beeps at me as 4DOS 6.02 did.
Sorry, it would be nice but it never did work that way. The parser deals
with the filename completion BEFORE it performs variable expansion, so it
would require major parser revision. Not done in any other product, either.
--
Steve
Mike Bessy
you will see most of the "What's New" files from versions past. You can
also use the several search mechanisms which I believe are still in place.
Whether what you describe is a bug or not is questionable and perhaps
you should ask Rex in the JP Software Forum. Since 4DOS is now
effectively dead, the matter may be moot, of course...
>> From Stan Brown on 8/24/2004 6:04 PM:
>
> Does anybody know where there's a revision history? I downloaded
> 7.50 but couldn't find any "what's new" or revision history in the
> help file.
>
> Right now I've got 6.02B (paid for). Filename completion doesn't
> work if the path is an environment variable. I thought this bug was
> fixed in 4DOS 7, but apparently it was not. Example:
> set h=c:\windows\tempor~1
> and then type the command
> edit %h\
> and hit the Tab key repeatedly. I should cycle through the filenames
> in that directory, but 4DOS 7.50 just beeps at me as 4DOS 6.02 did.
>
--
Stan Brown
comp.os.msdos.4dos:
>> work if the path is an environment variable. I thought this bug was
>> fixed in 4DOS 7, but apparently it was not.
>
>with the filename completion BEFORE it performs variable expansion, so it
>would require major parser revision. Not done in any other product, either.
Thanks Steve! I'm really glad now that I never paid another $75 to
buy DOS 7 for the bug fix -- I'd have been really annoyed! At least
now I know I wasn't missing anything.
Stan Brown
>you will see most of the "What's New" files from versions past.
"Page Not Available
"Error: The requested document does not exist or you do not have
access to it."
[Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
<http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
--
Steve Fábián
> "Steve Fábián" <ESFa...@BellAtlantic.net> wrote in
> comp.os.msdos.4dos:
> >"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.1b9593715...@news.odyssey.net...
> >> Filename completion doesn't
> >> work if the path is an environment variable. I thought this bug was
> >> fixed in 4DOS 7, but apparently it was not.
> >
> >Sorry, it would be nice but it never did work that way. The parser deals
> >with the filename completion BEFORE it performs variable expansion, so it
> >would require major parser revision. Not done in any other product,
either.
>
> Thanks Steve! I'm really glad now that I never paid another $75 to
> buy DOS 7 for the bug fix -- I'd have been really annoyed! At least
> now I know I wasn't missing anything.
You could have downloaded it for its free 30-day trial. In fact, if memory
serves right, the V7 30-day trial meant 30 separate days of usage, not a
single trial period of 30 consecutive days whether or not you used it after
the first day, as all other companies' I tried work.
... and as I said, implementation of desired enhancements is not the same as
fixing bugs. Yes, it is a desirable enhancement. I'd use it all the time,
too! But would you also expect that not only environment variables, but also
variable functions be expanded (evaluated) when performing filename
expansion? Esp. when they include @EXEC[] or @EXECSTR[]? Or a call on a
batch file? As limited as it is, it's still a lot more than COMMAND.COM
provides you.
--
Steve
Mike Bessy
you may have to ask JP Software.
This is silly, anyhow, since jpsoft has always provided a "What's New"
comparing each new version to the previous one. From merely glancing
at the site, I see "new0101.txt" (4DOS 7.0), "new0112.txt" (4DOS 7.01),
"new0302.txt (4DOS 7.50), "whatsnew.txt" (latest) and even "beta6.txt"
(for beta versions). I expect a few holes to develop in the site and I
already see a few crumbling bricks, but it's still pretty easy to find
what you're looking for, even if you are too shy to ask Mr. Conn.
Note that if your "upside down" remark must be in every one of your
messages, placing it *after* the sigdashes would make it much easier to
ignore... :-)
>> From Stan Brown on 8/25/2004 7:40 AM:
>>If you look at JP Software's text files ("http://jpsoft.com/ascii.htm"),
>>you will see most of the "What's New" files from versions past.
>
>
> "Page Not Available
>
> "Error: The requested document does not exist or you do not have
> access to it."
>
> [Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
> <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
>
--
L...@notmine.com
Instead of ignoring the request why not be a good guy and follow it?
LB
Mike Bessy
case, including material protected by sigdashes) before I get to the new
material (4 lines, in your case).
Top quoting might be helpful for people with short memory spans, but
it's not necessarily "best" for everyone. Since I've always posted my
reply first (starting even before Usenet was organized), don't fight it
and simply block my esthetically offensive messages... :-)
Note that it's just possible that substance should receive more
attention than form, but then I'm probably out of touch... :-)
>> From L...@notmine.com on 8/25/2004 10:08 AM:
Klaus Meinhard
> [Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
> <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
could we please have a little tolerance here? Take a look at
alt.msdos.batch, where some dummies quote a ton of text from several
preceding messages without editing, just to add "I agree" or something
similarly momentous.
Mike has handled forums and newsgroups long enough to have earned his
opinion, and if it differs from yours, so be it. Please don't try to
needle him to start again some war, as you did in the past. I am sure
his contributions to this newsgroup are valuable and reasonable readable
whatever his quoting style.
> Thanks Steve! I'm really glad now that I never paid another $75 to
> buy DOS 7 for the bug fix -- I'd have been really annoyed! At least
> now I know I wasn't missing anything.
You might try the new 7.50 freeware version. Perhaps you'll find
something worthwhile against your expectations?
--
Mit freundlichem Gruß,
Klaus Meinhard
Klaus Meinhard
I see you have found your way here :-)
> Instead of ignoring the request why not be a good guy and follow it?
... but I don't know if this is the best af all possible first messages
to a newsgroup :-(
While I expect that traffic here will take up somewhat in the future :-)
there is still the support group for jpsoft products, just see their
homepage for information how to join. "Official" support from the author
himself :-0 to be found there....
Stan Brown
comp.os.msdos.4dos:
>too! But would you also expect that not only environment variables, but also
>variable functions be expanded (evaluated) when performing filename
>expansion? Esp. when they include @EXEC[] or @EXECSTR[]? Or a call on a
>batch file? As limited as it is, it's still a lot more than COMMAND.COM
>provides you.
Interesting perspective. I do agree that it's something I don't have
AT ALL in plain DOS.
Stan Brown
comp.os.msdos.4dos:
>
>> Thanks Steve! I'm really glad now that I never paid another $75 to
>> buy DOS 7 for the bug fix -- I'd have been really annoyed! At least
>> now I know I wasn't missing anything.
>
>You might try the new 7.50 freeware version. Perhaps you'll find
>something worthwhile against your expectations?
Huh??? I _did_ try it, and it didn't work as I'd been led to expect
-- the bug fix or enhancement or whatever we want to call it is not
included.
There may indeed be other useful features, which is why I asked if
anyone could point me to a revision history. The 7.50 download did
not have any information about the changes from _any_ previous
version.
Klaus Meinhard
> There may indeed be other useful features, which is why I asked if
> anyone could point me to a revision history. The 7.50 download did
> not have any information about the changes from _any_ previous
> version.
http://www.jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?history.txt
CBFalconer
>
... snip Stan Browns message etc. ...
>
> Note that if your "upside down" remark must be in every one of
> your messages, placing it *after* the sigdashes would make it
> much easier to ignore... :-)
Please take this as a friendly tip. This is the sort of attitude
that got many people highly annoyed with you in the past. We
value your knowledge here, but the overwhelming majority want to
see bottom (or intermixed) posting, with appropriate snipping. I
don't think you really want to irritate the masses in your present
situation.
Try it, you might even learn to like it.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
L...@notmine.com
The reason for bottom posting has to do with a couple of issues:
Not everyone visits every day and some ISPs miss posts put up on other
ISPs. Those two things mean that to understand your reply on top one
must jump back and forth. Your unwillingness to jump or scroll to the
bottom reduces the value of many of your posts <sigh>.
LB
Mike Bessy
irritates me too much, I'll simply quit monitoring (again). I don't
visit this ng to learn anything about 4DOS/4NT. I'm not running for
political office and nobody here ("the masses?) is likely to offer me a
source of income if I were to specifically post in whatever manner
he/she happens to prefer.
I can't help but get amused by the fact that some people object strongly
to the official jpsoft forum because it's too tightly regulated, but
then waste time and bandwidth on here trying to force adherence to some
vague preferences quoted at random from the plethora of opinions found
on the net. If anyone wants to enforce their own personal aesthetic
hangups, they can start their own private forum.
In other words, and at the risk of shocking everyone with such a candid
statement, let me quote a famous line for an old movie: "Frankly my
dear, I don't give a damn"... :-)
If this group has a function, it surely has to do with sharing of
knowledge about 4DOS/4NT, not with who can write the prettiest article
with the cutest signature. I notice in the jpsoft area that Rex has
already started to slightly bend the "truth" on what 4NT can and cannot
do (displaying the "=D" variables, for example), presumably to protect
the users from themselves. It might be useful to have around the only
other person who *knows* the product and the only one who is not
hampered by marketing and liability concerns, even if he top-posts. I
have nothing to lose or gain by posting here. Your call...
>> From CBFalconer on 8/25/2004 5:36 PM:
>
> Please take this as a friendly tip. This is the sort of attitude
> that got many people highly annoyed with you in the past. We
> value your knowledge here, but the overwhelming majority want to
> see bottom (or intermixed) posting, with appropriate snipping. I
> don't think you really want to irritate the masses in your present
> situation.
>
> Try it, you might even learn to like it.
>
--
CBFalconer
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> There may indeed be other useful features, which is why I asked
>> if anyone could point me to a revision history. The 7.50 download
>> did not have any information about the changes from _any_
>> previous version.
>
> http://www.jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?history.txt
Unfortunately that doesn't show the changes from 6.02 to 7, nor 7
to 7.5. When I bought 6 I expected the usual 'next major update'
free, and was irritated when jpsoft wanted people to buy the whole
thing.
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
>Not a problem. Who is *we*? If the behavior of posters in this group
>irritates me too much, I'll simply quit monitoring (again).
Perhaps we'd be better off in the long run if you left, then. :-)
I recognize you from the BBS nets many years ago, and I think you'd be
a helpful resource here, but I see enough egotistical bullshit from the
"experts" in other forums to want to see the same from an expert here.
If you want to be helpful, killfile those who complain about your top
posting style and be helpful. It's a simple thing to do, really.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.
Mike Bessy
available on the jpsoft site, showing the salient changes introduced in
versions 7.0, 7.01, and 7.50. I have no special fondness for JP
Software at this time, but we should at least be fair. If I remember
correctly, 4DOS7 was offered to customers who had bought a *new* 4DOS6
(not an upgrade) but that happened under the "old" (MA-based) JP
Software and not the current (MD-based) company.
In any case, since nobody has to pay for 4DOS any longer, the matter may
be moot.
>> From CBFalconer on 8/25/2004 10:25 PM:
> Unfortunately that doesn't show the changes from 6.02 to 7, nor 7
> to 7.5. When I bought 6 I expected the usual 'next major update'
> free, and was irritated when jpsoft wanted people to buy the whole
> thing.
>
--
Stan Brown
>Klaus Meinhard wrote:
>> http://www.jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?history.txt
>
>Unfortunately that doesn't show the changes from 6.02 to 7, nor 7
>to 7.5. When I bought 6 I expected the usual 'next major update'
>free, and was irritated when jpsoft wanted people to buy the whole
>thing.
Yes -- me too. I'd have been _really_ annoyed if I'd bought the
upgrade and then found out it still didn't fix the problem.
Stan Brown
>Ctrl End will take you to the end of the post.
True, but that's not usually the right thing to do.
It's best to trim the quoted part of the previous article to just
the minimum needed to put one's new comments in context.
Stan Brown
>available on the jpsoft site,
People keep "mentioning" it, but no one yet has produced an actual
working URL.
> If I remember
>correctly, 4DOS7 was offered to customers who had bought a *new* 4DOS6
>(not an upgrade)
I don't think you do remember correctly, or else the policy was
applied inconsistently. I bought a new release 6, and I was
solicited to pay full price for release 7.
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
>In any case, since nobody has to pay for 4DOS any longer, the matter may
>be moot.
Do you know if JP Software is going to release the source for 4DOS like
they did with 4OS2?
Mike Bessy
beginning of my message. I suggest you simply visit JP Software's site
("http://jpsoft.com/"), especially their Directory of Text Files page at
"http://jpsoft.com/ascii.htm".
23-Feb-04 31K What's new in 4DOS 7.50, 4NT 5.00, Take Command 5.00
http://jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?whatsnew.txt
http://jpsoft.com/ascii/whatsnew.txt
21-Dec-01 39K What's new in 4DOS 7.01, 4NT 4.01, Take Command/32 3.01
http://jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?new0112.txt
http://jpsoft.com/ascii/whatsnew.txt
08-Jun-01 36K What's new in 4DOS 7.0, 4NT 4.0, Take Command/32 3.0
http://jpsoft.com/jpview.cgi?new0106.txt
http://jpsoft.com/ascii/new0106.txt
There were also newsletters, postings on the Forum and on the web site,
etc..
In the above, the first link is to the fancy(?) HTML wrapper and the
second one is directly to the plain text file.
I can't help you with your upgrade trauma since I now got rid of all my
jpsoft records, sorry. Perhaps you should have brought it up at the
time, not 3+ years later.
>> From Stan Brown on 8/25/2004 11:53 PM:
>
> People keep "mentioning" it, but no one yet has produced an actual
> working URL.
> ...
>
> I don't think you do remember correctly, or else the policy was
> applied inconsistently. I bought a new release 6, and I was
> solicited to pay full price for release 7.
>
--
Mike Bessy
trying it it out during the evaluation period (or forever if you figured
out the trivially simple way to reset the eval period).
>> From Stan Brown on 8/25/2004 11:51 PM:
>
>
> Yes -- me too. I'd have been _really_ annoyed if I'd bought the
> upgrade and then found out it still didn't fix the problem.
>
--
R.A.G. Seely
> It's best to trim the quoted part of the previous article to just
> the minimum needed to put one's new comments in context.
Certainly too-extensive quoting is the real bane of news groups - a
bottom post of one or two lines following pages of quoted text -
worse, with many different depths of quoting! - is worse than a short
top-posted post with equally redundant quoting, for example. As you
suggest, the optimal post includes what is necessary, no more, no
less, and is interspaced so as to create a dialog with the quoted
text.
Having said that, all this ng needs to attain perfection is a long
thread on top posting vs bottom posting ...
--
-= rags =-
(Do I need to alert feeble irony detectors?: :-) ... )
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Mike Bessy
but it's extremely likely to happen at some not-so-distant-future date.
I for one would like to see that happen since I have a personal port
of 4DOS for another platform which I can't use publicly unless the
source is officially released.
>> From Richard Steiner on 8/25/2004 11:34 PM:
>
> Do you know if JP Software is going to release the source for 4DOS like
> they did with 4OS2?
>
--
Vic Dura
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Try it, you might even learn to like it.
>
>--
>Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
What happened to you sig about "..why people don't like top-posting.."
or something to that effect. I thought it was great.
Or am I confusing you with someone else?
--
To reply to me directly, remove the XXX characters from my email address.
Vic Dura
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> wrote:
>Not a problem. Who is *we*? If the behavior of posters in this group
>irritates me too much, I'll simply quit monitoring (again).
Well, from the brief C.V. that you posted a short while ago, you've
quit so many other opportunities in your life, one more won't hurt.
Klaus Meinhard
> Well, from the brief C.V. that you posted a short while ago, you've
> quit so many other opportunities in your life, one more won't hurt.
it is such a short way from something really trivial like differences in
quoting styles to personal attacks and word slashings that really hurt.
I thought a.m.b was the group where silly personal feuds are fought.
I have made the fact that 4dos is now freeware known in several dos
related groups, english and german, and mentioned the fact that this is
the relevant newsgroup if they seek help. So I expect some newcomers to
show up here, and they'll be surely delighted to come to such a warm and
welcoming environment.
Slightly disgusted,
Klaus Meinhard
Steve Fábián
> Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> wrote:
> > If I remember
> >correctly, 4DOS7 was offered to customers who had bought a *new* 4DOS6
> >(not an upgrade)
>
> I don't think you do remember correctly, or else the policy was
> applied inconsistently. I bought a new release 6, and I was
> solicited to pay full price for release 7.
As I recall, those who paid for a full release SHORTLY before the new
release was available were offered the free upgrade, those with earlier
releases or longer time between its purchase and the new version's release
date were offered the upgrade price. In this case, if you bought the still
current release ON or AFTER June 1st of this 2004th year, you get the new
one (very close to release, release candidate beta version is now in public
trial) free. If you skipped a release, you were never offered free versions.
Another way to get a free license had been to be a frequent, positive
contributor to the company's ng, and thus be invited to be a private beta
tester. I myself had made several enhancement suggestions over the years,
most of them opposed by Mr. Bessy, that had been implemented, and received
free upgrades as a result.
Come to think of it, two of the major enhancements in the current (7.50)
version of 4DOS over 6.02 which had been my suggestions and which you would
probably find extremely useful are:
* the availability of user defined functions (UDF-s) - these are defined
in the same manner as aliases, but invoked in the manner of "variable
functions". You can do a miriad of things inline with them which previously
required calling an external batch program
* the "ENDLOCAL variablename ..." syntax - this (when used together with
SETLOCAL) allows a batch program, or a GOSUB section within a batch program,
unlimited use of local variables (and other objects) without affecting the
rest of your program hierarchy, but still capable of modifying or creating
variables you can use to export results from the protected code.
--
Steve
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> What happened to you sig about "..why people don't like top-posting.."
> or something to that effect. I thought it was great.
I vary it as the mood fits, using the following. Pasted as quote
to avoid linewraps.
> [1] c:\dnld\scratch>alias setsig
> copy /q \netscape\users\cbf\sig%1%.txt \netscape\users\cbf\signatur.txt ^ cat \n
> etscape\users\cbf\signatur.txt
>
> [1] c:\dnld\scratch>alias showsigs
> de \netscape\users\cbf\sig*.txt
>
> [1] c:\dnld\scratch>alias de
> dir /a: /z /h
>
> [1] c:\dnld\scratch>showsigs
>
> Volume in drive C is WD30-PRI41 Serial number is 3CE4:239B
> Directory of C:\netscape\users\cbf\sig*.txt
>
> sig1.txt 183 4-06-02 18:10 Master sig lines for all mail
> sig2.txt 255 3-20-04 3:11 Microsoft dig
> sig3.txt 261 8-05-04 22:31 Bush quotations re war
> sig4.txt 262 8-08-04 17:14 Bush and Mr Ed
> sig5.txt 289 8-13-04 12:12 C newsgroup links
> sig6.txt 188 4-04-04 14:40 Top-posting
> sig7.txt 195 5-20-04 6:54 Ridiculous software
> sig8.txt 130 8-06-04 3:00 Crick on errors
> signatur.txt 183 4-06-02 18:10 Master sig lines for all mail
CBFalconer
bottom posting and snipping to express it. Just this once.
Klaus Meinhard wrote:
--
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Come to think of it, two of the major enhancements in the current
> (7.50) version of 4DOS over 6.02 which had been my suggestions and
> which you would probably find extremely useful are:
>
> * the availability of user defined functions (UDF-s) - these
> are defined in the same manner as aliases, but invoked in the
> manner of "variable functions". You can do a miriad of things
> inline with them which previously required calling an external
> batch program
>
> * the "ENDLOCAL variablename ..." syntax - this (when used
> together with SETLOCAL) allows a batch program, or a GOSUB
> section within a batch program, unlimited use of local variables
> (and other objects) without affecting the rest of your program
> hierarchy, but still capable of modifying or creating variables
> you can use to export results from the protected code.
The parameter syntax %3& was my suggestion way back when the
feedback was via the Fido echo to Rex, and I believe predates
Mikes association.
Klaus Meinhard
> The parameter syntax %3& was my suggestion way back when the
> feedback was via the Fido echo to Rex, and I believe predates
> Mikes association.
While were at it: I think GOSUB with parameters was my suggestions. I
filched it from FRED, the "4th generation programming language" of
Ashton Tate's Framework when that was the best integrated office
environment :-)
Plus @min and @max, @left and @right @caps (which were inspired by the
same source) and some heavily disputed things like %_build :-)
Steve Fábián
> "Steve Fábián" wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > Come to think of it, two of the major enhancements in the current
>
> The parameter syntax %3& was my suggestion way back when the
> feedback was via the Fido echo to Rex, and I believe predates
> Mikes association.
I listed those two items not because I had first suggested them (at least in
public, since only JPsoft employees were ever privy to what was sent to
"suggestions"), but because they are two of the most significant
enhancements (in my own biased opinion). Just to let the OP know what he is
losing by not upgrading without cost.
BTW, Mike was already associated with JPsoft when I first used its products.
I had been associated, too, in the form of independent contractor, making
jphelp.chm enhancements last year. That, however, has not made me an
official representative of the Company, as you could see in the many
differences of opinion between Mike and myself.
--
Steve
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
> >> From Richard Steiner on 8/25/2004 11:34 PM:
>
>> Do you know if JP Software is going to release the source for 4DOS like
>> they did with 4OS2?
>
>That's not something we specifically discussed when I was still there,
>but it's extremely likely to happen at some not-so-distant-future date.
Okay. Thank you. That suggests we might see it someday, which is good
enough for me (at least from a long-term perspective).
I know a small number of bug fixes have been applied to 4OS2 by a third
party since its release, and I'm sure 4DOS has at least as many people
interested in its future. :-)
> I for one would like to see that happen since I have a personal port
>of 4DOS for another platform which I can't use publicly unless the
>source is officially released.
Another platform, huh? I wonder if it's one of the OSes I use? :-)
I'd love to see a POSIX port myself, since I think bash (and zsh) are
both somewhat weak when compared to the 4* shells, at least in terms of
interactive use. They're pretty good shells for scripting, though.
Heck, even a Linux/BSD/BeOS port of the SELECT command would be a very
useful thing in my book.
Mike Bessy
_eventually_ available (probably after the next - after 6.0 - 4NT is
out). There's at least ONE user who I know has been screaming for a
modified 4DOS that would handle features specific to his preferred DOS
flavor.
Whether it makes sense this late in the useful life of DOS to enhance
4DOS is questionable, especially since DOS itself has not significantly
changed since MS-DOS 6.22 (some would say since 3.1 when networking was
introduced). Let's face it, DOS is dead. Unfortunately, other more
exciting platforms, such as OS/2, are also effectively dead. Even more
unfortunately, Windows is still the favorite of the masses for no
logical reason. The heir apparent of the DOS era is now Windows,
whether we like it or not, and 4NT is still alive and well until Rex
turns it into an all-GUI product.
I use BSD and Linux extensively (I just converted another machine to
Linux since I no longer need to support DOS/Windows users). FYI, the
jpsoft.net server has always been on Unix flavors. A port of a DOS
command processor would be much more complicated than it seems since the
file systems and process management methods are so different. It would
require most of the functionality of a full DOS emulator, but then why
not simply run dosemu or a similar package? :-)
SELECT? Fairly easy to emulate on *nix if you're willing to cope with
standard *nix regexps instead of the jpsoft syntax.
>> From Richard Steiner on 8/26/2004 4:17 PM:
>
>
> Okay. Thank you. That suggests we might see it someday, which is good
> enough for me (at least from a long-term perspective).
>
> I know a small number of bug fixes have been applied to 4OS2 by a third
> party since its release, and I'm sure 4DOS has at least as many people
> interested in its future. :-)
>...
>
> Another platform, huh? I wonder if it's one of the OSes I use? :-)
>
> I'd love to see a POSIX port myself, since I think bash (and zsh) are
> both somewhat weak when compared to the 4* shells, at least in terms of
> interactive use. They're pretty good shells for scripting, though.
>
> Heck, even a Linux/BSD/BeOS port of the SELECT command would be a very
> useful thing in my book.
>
--
Steve Fábián
news:kNlLBpHp...@visi.com...
> Here in comp.os.msdos.4dos,
> Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
>
> > >> From Richard Steiner on 8/25/2004 11:34 PM:
> >
> >> Do you know if JP Software is going to release the source for 4DOS like
> >> they did with 4OS2?
> >
> >That's not something we specifically discussed when I was still there,
> >but it's extremely likely to happen at some not-so-distant-future date.
>
> Okay. Thank you. That suggests we might see it someday, which is good
> enough for me (at least from a long-term perspective).
>
> I know a small number of bug fixes have been applied to 4OS2 by a third
> party since its release, and I'm sure 4DOS has at least as many people
> interested in its future. :-)
>
> > I for one would like to see that happen since I have a personal port
> >of 4DOS for another platform which I can't use publicly unless the
> >source is officially released.
>
> Another platform, huh? I wonder if it's one of the OSes I use? :-)
>
> I'd love to see a POSIX port myself, since I think bash (and zsh) are
> both somewhat weak when compared to the 4* shells, at least in terms of
> interactive use. They're pretty good shells for scripting, though.
>
> Heck, even a Linux/BSD/BeOS port of the SELECT command would be a very
> useful thing in my book.
Would you post your message in newsgroup jpsoft_support on server
email.sparklist.com after signing up @ jpsoft.com ? While Mike quoted a
recent posting from Rex, that's still the official forum, and those of us
interested in a *nix flavor of jpsoft shells could use the additional
request.
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
> Whether it makes sense this late in the useful life of DOS to enhance
> 4DOS is questionable, especially since DOS itself has not significantly
> changed since MS-DOS 6.22 (some would say since 3.1 when networking was
> introduced). Let's face it, DOS is dead.
Perhaps, though I tend to use a number of DOS programs heavily still in
VDMs on this OS/2 box, on my Win95B boxen, and via DOSEMU under Linux.
> Unfortunately, other more exciting platforms, such as OS/2, are also
> effectively dead.
True, and for many people a software product's death in the marketplace
is almost as good as its actual death, mainly because it becomes nearly
invisible and harder to find in mainstream shopping areas.
Then again, a hobbyist like myself is quite aware of nonmainstream s/w
sources and products like eComStation, so we're not so limited. :-)
> Even more unfortunately, Windows is still the favorite of the masses
> for no logical reason.
My own guess is threefold:
(1) Preloads
(2) Games
(3) Microsoft Office
Not necessarily in that order.
> The heir apparent of the DOS era is now Windows, whether we like it
> or not, and 4NT is still alive and well until Rex turns it into an
> all-GUI product.
He can do what he wants with it. I don't use it. :-)
> I use BSD and Linux extensively (I just converted another machine to
> Linux since I no longer need to support DOS/Windows users).
My BSD usage is zero right now because I went though a phase where I
decided that Mandrake 8.2 was an almost perfect fit for me in terms of
playing fileserver, and FreeBSD's continued lack of extended partition
support pissed me off. I just grabbed a new set of ISOs, though, so
perhaps there'll be more of it in my future.
I want to play with the newest version of Solaris/x86 as well. Again.
> A port of a DOS command processor would be much more complicated than
> it seems since the file systems and process management methods are so
> different.
Sure. I don't want the shell necessarily, but some of its functions
are things I really miss.
> It would require most of the functionality of a full DOS emulator,
> but then why not simply run dosemu or a similar package? :-)
Well, DOSEMU is a good way to run DOS stuff under Linux, but I'd love a
better selection of 4DOS visual interface elements in a real *NIX shell.
> SELECT? Fairly easy to emulate on *nix if you're willing to cope with
> standard *nix regexps instead of the jpsoft syntax.
I'm resigned to using Midnight Commander now for point-and-shoot file
manipulation, but it isn't as easy to embed in an alias. :-)
Mike Bessy
DOS with a graphical layer. Both are dangerously close to marketplace
extinction. If the NT DOS emulator were as good as dosemu, then perhaps
DOS would manage to survive, but that's hardly the case.
Preloads and games are merely a result of Microsoft's aggressive
marketing techniques. MS Office had a hard fight, but by now even the
non-MS products try to emulate Office. The WINWORD format, for example,
is quasi ubiquitous (my fingers are still stuck in the Barnaby diamond
of old WS). Amazing how money and advertising can overcome obvious
technical and security limitations when it comes to influencing the
buying decisions of the masses....
4NT will probably disappear altogether as soon as Rex can do so safely.
There is a long thread in the jpsoft forum about "4NT vs TCMD"
where the people who seem to prefer TCMD appear to be mostly the ones
who never bothered to learn how to use console sessions properly under
Windows.
After so many years of maintaining BSB servers for jpsoft, I'm not ready
to cut loose yet, but I'm slowly getting "into" Redhat (for servers) and
Mandrake (for general computing). Right now when I have no income, I
have to stick to free or VERY inexpensive software, of course.
>> From Richard Steiner on 8/27/2004 1:24 AM:
>
> Perhaps, though I tend to use a number of DOS programs heavily still in
> VDMs on this OS/2 box, on my Win95B boxen, and via DOSEMU under Linux.
>...
>
> True, and for many people a software product's death in the marketplace
> is almost as good as its actual death, mainly because it becomes nearly
> invisible and harder to find in mainstream shopping areas.
>
> Then again, a hobbyist like myself is quite aware of nonmainstream s/w
> sources and products like eComStation, so we're not so limited. :-)
>...
>
> My own guess is threefold:
>
> (1) Preloads
> (2) Games
> (3) Microsoft Office
>
> Not necessarily in that order.
>...
>
> He can do what he wants with it. I don't use it. :-)
>...
>
> My BSD usage is zero right now because I went though a phase where I
> decided that Mandrake 8.2 was an almost perfect fit for me in terms of
> playing fileserver, and FreeBSD's continued lack of extended partition
> support pissed me off. I just grabbed a new set of ISOs, though, so
> perhaps there'll be more of it in my future.
>
> I want to play with the newest version of Solaris/x86 as well. Again.
>...
>
> Sure. I don't want the shell necessarily, but some of its functions
> are things I really miss.
>...
>
> Well, DOSEMU is a good way to run DOS stuff under Linux, but I'd love a
> better selection of 4DOS visual interface elements in a real *NIX shell.
>...
>
> I'm resigned to using Midnight Commander now for point-and-shoot file
> manipulation, but it isn't as easy to embed in an alias. :-)
>
--
Richard Steiner
"Steve Fábián" <ESFa...@BellAtlantic.net> spake unto us, saying:
>Would you post your message in newsgroup jpsoft_support on server
>email.sparklist.com after signing up @ jpsoft.com ?
Sure. I just joined the list, and will slowly check the place out.
>While Mike quoted a recent posting from Rex, that's still the official
>forum, and those of us interested in a *nix flavor of jpsoft shells
>could use the additional request.
I guess it's been several years since the last time I asked about it
myself. :-)
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
>OS/2's VDMs and VMBs are very close to "real" DOS, and "Win95" is simply
>DOS with a graphical layer.
Yes. Thankfully, both also support other APIs for which many useful
programs have been written, so they are a superset of DOS in terms of
the software they are actually able to run.
Both also provide a certain level of multitasking (OS/2's is better in
some ways than Win95's, but both are a step above what I used to have
with DesqView, Windows 3.x, or PC/GEOS).
>Both are dangerously close to marketplace extinction.
Sadly, that's also true. I'm sure that's a large reason why 4OS2 and
4DOS have now been released to the user base as freeware.
>If the NT DOS emulator were as good as dosemu, then perhaps DOS would
>manage to survive, but that's hardly the case.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure how many NT users actually care all that
much about DOS. Some XP users might, though. Maybe something like the
DOSBOX emulator will add life to DOS in that environment...?
In any case, I'm certain that a small core of DOS users will remain for
years to come. I know I won't stop using the DOS software I like, at
least as long as I can run either OS/2 or DOSEMU on my main system...
>Preloads and games are merely a result of Microsoft's aggressive
>marketing techniques.
Yes, although the legality of some of those techniques has been brought
into question on numerous occasion. A lack of similar methods on the
part of Microsoft's opposition is/was also a factor (e.g., IBM).
>MS Office had a hard fight, but by now even the non-MS products try to
>emulate Office. The WINWORD format, for example, is quasi ubiquitous
>(my fingers are still stuck in the Barnaby diamond of old WS).
Ah, but which Word format? We even bad problems standardizing on Word
6.0/95 documents at my former workplace since newer versions of Word
seemed incapable of saving the old format successfully, and differences
existed between the Mac and Windows versions of Word that were supposed
to be "the same version". A word document can quickly turn into margin
hell if you change *any* of the default margin settings. :-(
>Amazing how money and advertising can overcome obvious technical and
>security limitations when it comes to influencing the buying decisions
>of the masses....
Having a largely non-technical PC user base (as well as a large number
of technical folks with little to no knowledge of other platforms) has
provided them with a captive audience of sorts, also.
The airline I worked for also used Solaris/Sparc and Macintosh desktop
boxes, so management was at least familiar with the existence of viable
alternatives (even as they were moving to stamp them out).
>4NT will probably disappear altogether as soon as Rex can do so safely.
> There is a long thread in the jpsoft forum about "4NT vs TCMD"
>where the people who seem to prefer TCMD appear to be mostly the ones
>who never bothered to learn how to use console sessions properly under
>Windows.
Hmmm. Being a mainframer myself who loves playing in CLI environments,
I have a hard time relating to the GUI-centric viewpoint that seems to
have developed in recent times even in technical circles.
I admit it sometimes makes sense when a vendor does things right (like
the MacOS 7 and 8 environment I've used in the workplace, which I feel
was very well designed), and I see the value of some GUI use, but not
to the extent (and in some of the contexts) that it seems to be popular
today. Why on earth would a server admin want a GUI? Doesn't that add
many layers of complexity (and dependencies) to task automation?
>After so many years of maintaining BSB servers for jpsoft, I'm not ready
>to cut loose yet, but I'm slowly getting "into" Redhat (for servers) and
>Mandrake (for general computing). Right now when I have no income, I
>have to stick to free or VERY inexpensive software, of course.
I've been unemployed for most of the past 32 months, so I can relate to
the "having no income" bit, at least somewhat. :-(
Having multiple machines also makes software with small or no license
fees a desireable thing -- upgrading Windows on my LAN would cost me
over a grand, while a couple of ISO images grabbed from the net costs
me nothing but time (which I happen to have in quantity right now).
Mike Bessy
pitiful numbers. I think it's even worse than what happened to 4OS2
towards the end. Effective development ceased a while back.
Old habit. By "NT" I was referring to the entire NT family, including
versions 3.x, 4.x, and 5.x. User of NT5 (W2k/XP) typically don't
understand what's involved in running 16-bit DOS applications,
especially now that Microsoft has decide to use the "DOS" label to
describe character-mode sessions in general.
With very few exceptions, Microsoft's practices have been deemed legal,
but hardly ethical. I've been involved first hand in a couple of their
early "acquisitions".
Using "standards" that keep changing is a great marketing ploy, making
sure you always stay a step ahead of the competition. I suppose it's
good business for Microsoft and applications programmers, however
deplorable it might be for the victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H users.
No question in my mind that current "technical circles" are much less
"technical" than they used to be. If you took away Win32 APIs and
C/C++, it seems many "techies" would be clueless. Once upon a time,
logical thinking was a requirement. Nowadays it might be a hindrance.
I mostly gave up on Apple when they killed the Lisa (the original, not
the subsequent copy), but my significant other has a couple of OS X
machines that look pretty interesting. A GUI is great for _graphical_
tasks. I prefer a GUI-based paint program to ASCII art, for example.
For other tasks, a word is worth a thousand pictures, and I have yet to
see a compiler or assembler that gives a hoot about fonts and colors.
Calligraphy is pointless when composing a text message.. :-)
Unemployment has a few advantages (finally time to clean up old
configurations, swap hardware around, etc.), but I don't think I'll like
it much when I run out of necessities such as Internet access and coffee...
Time? Funny you should say that. I'm running RHN up2date right now,
something I've been meaning to do for weeks but never could accomplish
when I was jpsoft 24/7... :-)
>> From Richard Steiner on 8/27/2004 2:09 AM:
>
> Sadly, that's also true. I'm sure that's a large reason why 4OS2 and
> 4DOS have now been released to the user base as freeware.
>...
>
> Perhaps, although I'm not sure how many NT users actually care all that
> much about DOS. Some XP users might, though. Maybe something like the
> DOSBOX emulator will add life to DOS in that environment...?
>
> In any case, I'm certain that a small core of DOS users will remain for
> years to come. I know I won't stop using the DOS software I like, at
> least as long as I can run either OS/2 or DOSEMU on my main system...
>...
>
> Yes, although the legality of some of those techniques has been brought
> into question on numerous occasion. A lack of similar methods on the
> part of Microsoft's opposition is/was also a factor (e.g., IBM).
>...
>
> Ah, but which Word format? We even bad problems standardizing on Word
> 6.0/95 documents at my former workplace since newer versions of Word
> seemed incapable of saving the old format successfully, and differences
> existed between the Mac and Windows versions of Word that were supposed
> to be "the same version". A word document can quickly turn into margin
> hell if you change *any* of the default margin settings. :-(
>...
>
> Having a largely non-technical PC user base (as well as a large number
> of technical folks with little to no knowledge of other platforms) has
> provided them with a captive audience of sorts, also.
>
> The airline I worked for also used Solaris/Sparc and Macintosh desktop
> boxes, so management was at least familiar with the existence of viable
> alternatives (even as they were moving to stamp them out).
>...
>
> Hmmm. Being a mainframer myself who loves playing in CLI environments,
> I have a hard time relating to the GUI-centric viewpoint that seems to
> have developed in recent times even in technical circles.
>
> I admit it sometimes makes sense when a vendor does things right (like
> the MacOS 7 and 8 environment I've used in the workplace, which I feel
> was very well designed), and I see the value of some GUI use, but not
> to the extent (and in some of the contexts) that it seems to be popular
> today. Why on earth would a server admin want a GUI? Doesn't that add
> many layers of complexity (and dependencies) to task automation?
>...
>
> I've been unemployed for most of the past 32 months, so I can relate to
> the "having no income" bit, at least somewhat. :-(
>
> Having multiple machines also makes software with small or no license
> fees a desireable thing -- upgrading Windows on my LAN would cost me
> over a grand, while a couple of ISO images grabbed from the net costs
> me nothing but time (which I happen to have in quantity right now).
>
--
Vic Dura
"Klaus Meinhard" <K_Mei...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Vic,
>
>> Well, from the brief C.V. that you posted a short while ago, you've
>> quit so many other opportunities in your life, one more won't hurt.
>
>it is such a short way from something really trivial like differences in
>quoting styles to personal attacks and word slashings that really hurt.
>I thought a.m.b was the group where silly personal feuds are fought.
I wish I could be as tolerant and forebearing as you.
I tend to get really annoyed when someone gives my nose a twist; then
I regret it later. It's one of *my* personality defects that I have to
work on.
Vic Dura
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Vic Dura wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> What happened to you sig about "..why people don't like top-posting.."
>> or something to that effect. I thought it was great.
>
>I vary it as the mood fits, using the following. Pasted as quote
>to avoid linewraps.
Well, how about posting sig7.txt here. I love it!
Mike Bessy
convenient option for chronically twisted noses... :-)
>> From Vic Dura on 8/27/2004 5:00 AM:
>...
>
> I wish I could be as tolerant and forebearing as you.
>
> I tend to get really annoyed when someone gives my nose a twist; then
> I regret it later. It's one of *my* personality defects that I have to
> work on.
>
--
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Vic Dura wrote:
>>>
>>... snip ...
>>>
>>> What happened to you sig about "..why people don't like top-posting.."
>>> or something to that effect. I thought it was great.
>>
>> I vary it as the mood fits, using the following. Pasted as quote
>> to avoid linewraps.
>
> Well, how about posting sig7.txt here. I love it!
Oh, very well.
--
"The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry
is its continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering
gains made by the computer hardware industry..." - Petroski
Stan Brown
>In any case, I'm certain that a small core of DOS users will remain for
>years to come. I know I won't stop using the DOS software I like, at
>least as long as I can run either OS/2 or DOSEMU on my main system...
I agree. Sales of my shareware GREP for DOS[1] are slow but steady,
a few copies every month. And if a few people are registering it,
some multiple of that must be downloading it and using it for free.
[1] http://oakroadsystems.com/sharware/grep.htm -- both a 16-bit
version and a 32-bitWindows console app are in the download file.
Every time I float a balloon about dropping the 16-bit version, a
couple of users tell me they're still running plain DOS.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"You want an intelligent conversation? Do what I do: talk to
yourself. It's the only way." -- /Torch Song Trilogy/
Stan Brown
>6.0/95 documents at my former workplace since newer versions of Word
>seemed incapable of saving the old format successfully, and differences
>existed between the Mac and Windows versions of Word that were supposed
>to be "the same version".
Very often in that situation, doing a Save As and choosing RTF
format results in a document that plays better with other versions.
I do this routinely when e-mailing a document, as it prevents the
transmission of macro-based malware (or any other macros), as well
as the record of prior versions.
L...@notmine.com
I think that sig has it backwards.
"The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry
is its continuing development of software that requires steady and
staggering gains by the computer hardware industry..."
There is a small company named Microsoft that proves my theory.
More general applications have been enumerated by Parkinson.
LB
Vic Dura
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, that's not the one I was thinking about. It's the one about
top-posting that I love.
Bill Stewart
> Fortunately, we all have the option of ignoring any post anywhere, a
> convenient option for chronically twisted noses... :-)
It's one thing to get one's nose twisted unexpectedly. A self-inflicted
wound is another thing entirely.
Regards,
Bill
Bill Stewart
> OS/2's VDMs and VMBs are very close to "real" DOS, and "Win95" is simply
> DOS with a graphical layer.
Actually, the "layer" of which you speak is really a 32-bit protected-mode
operating system. It actually runs DOS, not the other way around.
Regards,
Bill
Bruce Morgen
Bill is right afaik -- DOS
has two roles in Win9x/ME:
as a 16-bit program loader
for boot-up and as Bill
describes. The old
description "DOS in a
clown suit" fits WIN3x and
WFWG a lot better than it
applies to Win9x/ME imo.
>
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Mike Bessy
feel better. Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating
system. Not worth fighting for since Win9x it's now also pretty much
dead... :-)
>> From Bill Stewart on 8/30/2004 10:36 AM:
--
Bill Stewart
> Bill is right afaik -- DOS has two roles in Win9x/ME: as a 16-bit program
> loader for boot-up and as Bill describes. The old description "DOS in a
> clown suit" fits WIN3x and WFWG a lot better than it applies to Win9x/ME
> imo.
That depends on whether you run Win3x in "386 enhanced mode." The 386
enhanced mode architecture in Win3x is similar to Win9x: Both run in 32-bit
protected mode and execute DOS in V86 mode (which is a form of protected
mode, not real mode).
Regards,
Bill
Klaus Meinhard
> Ah, that old Redmond truth-bending myth... Believe it if it makes you
> feel better. Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating
> system. Not worth fighting for since Win9x it's now also pretty much
> dead... :-)
... and I thought you had a ready-made text on Ctrl-W for this one :-)
Bruce Morgen
Even when the Win3x/FWG
ran in 32-bit protected
mode, functions like
disk access were BIOS-
based and therefore
involved running 16-bit
code -- this isn't true
of Win9x/ME when it's
run with proper drivers.
That's imo a big step
closer to being a true
protected mode OS and a
significant improvement.
Bill Stewart
> Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating system.
Surely you're aware that it runs in protected mode and not real mode?
Bill
Bill Stewart
> Even when the Win3x/FWG ran in 32-bit protected mode, functions like disk
> access were BIOS- based and therefore involved running 16-bit code --
> this isn't true of Win9x/ME when it's run with proper drivers. That's imo
> a big step closer to being a true protected mode OS and a significant
> improvement.
True, except I'd add that WFW 3.11 had a check-box called "use 32-bit disk
access" that offloaded INT 13h disk access to a Windows device driver. WFW
3.11 also had "32-bit file access," which allowed Windows to handle the
DOS-like INT 21h interface with a Windows device driver.
Regards,
Bill
CBFalconer
> Mike Bessy wrote:
>
>> Ah, that old Redmond truth-bending myth... Believe it if it
>> makes you feel better. Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a
>> 32-bit operating system. Not worth fighting for since Win9x it's
>> now also pretty much dead... :-)
>
> ... and I thought you had a ready-made text on Ctrl-W for this
> one :-)
I have no difficulty with that particular 32 bit claim. W9x has
its own drivers for disc access and pretty well relies on the DOS
facility only for booting and for console communication. It is
still the preferred platform for many because it doesn't hamper
hardware access. It is hated by many because it doesn't protect
against hamfisted hardware access.
This is not to be construed as an endorsement of Microsoft.
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
Mike Bessy
years ago. At one time, even Win 1.x was to be marketed as an OS
(similar to the WinME approach) but even MS couldn't pull that one off.
I'm sure the usual technobabble flurry will appear in this thread,
full of untested claims gathered verbatim from MS
propaganda/documentation. History will definitely describe Win9x/ME as
"32-bit operating systems", of course. In the grand scheme of things,
it matters little...
>> From Klaus Meinhard on 8/30/2004 11:45 AM:
> Mike Bessy wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, that old Redmond truth-bending myth... Believe it if it makes you
>>feel better. Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating
>>system. Not worth fighting for since Win9x it's now also pretty much
>>dead... :-)
>
>
> ... and I thought you had a ready-made text on Ctrl-W for this one :-)
>
>
--
Bruce Morgen
I agree, WFWG was a baby
step toward Win9x/ME in
that respect and also in
regard to built-in LAN
support, which also
eliminated a good deal
of 16-bit code.
Richard Steiner
Mike Bessy <bi...@starband.net> spake unto us, saying:
>Ah, that old Redmond truth-bending myth... Believe it if it makes you
>feel better. Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating
>system. Not worth fighting for since Win9x it's now also pretty much
>dead... :-)
Not here. I've found that, with QuikMenu 4 as the shell, my Win95 OSR2
setup is actually very nice for playing older games. :-)
Richard Steiner
Bill Stewart <llib.t...@yrautromhcnerf.moc> spake unto us, saying:
>Mike Bessy wrote:
>
> > Sure, let's pretend that Win9x was a 32-bit operating system.
>
>Surely you're aware that it runs in protected mode and not real mode?
So does Quake. That doesn't make it an OS. :-)
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
BS> Actually, the "layer" of which you speak is really a 32-bit
BS> protected-mode operating system. It actually runs DOS,
BS> not the other way around.
Oh for goodness' sake! This stuff was debunked at length in public
almost _ten years_ ago. Go to Google Groups, pick
"comp.os.os2.advocacy", set the pointers to 1995, and begin reading.
You'll learn, for starters, that there's a *lot* of 16-bit stuff in
DOS-Windows 3.1/95/98/ME, including the graphical parts that Mike
referred to. You'll also learn that the "operating system" as you term
it and the "graphical layer" are two different things in DOS-Windows
3.1/95/98/ME.
Bill Stewart
> So does Quake. That doesn't make it an OS. :-)
True, but understanding the difference between real mode and protected
mode is the first step in overcoming the notion that Windows 9x is
somehow a "DOS shell" or "DOS TSR." This notion is simply incorrect.
DOS extenders (like what Quake uses) run in protected mode
(specifically, V86 mode) and could just as well handle any or all DOS
calls in protected mode. The point is that the DOS extender is in
control, not DOS, and DOS is simply a subservient assistant. That's the
arrangement in Win9x. Windows actually controls DOS, not the other way
around.
Regards,
Bill
Richard Steiner
Bill Stewart <llib.t...@yrautromhcnerf.moc> spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>> So does Quake. That doesn't make it an OS. :-)
>
>True, but understanding the difference between real mode and protected
>mode is the first step in overcoming the notion that Windows 9x is
>somehow a "DOS shell" or "DOS TSR." This notion is simply incorrect.
While Windows 9x might be an OS by some definitions, it most certainly
isn't the paragon of 32-bit OS design that Microsoft made it out to be
during its lengthy "Chicago" marketing campaign.
It worked better than many of us expected, but it was still a kludge.
>DOS extenders (like what Quake uses) run in protected mode
>(specifically, V86 mode) and could just as well handle any or all DOS
>calls in protected mode. The point is that the DOS extender is in
>control, not DOS, and DOS is simply a subservient assistant. That's the
>arrangement in Win9x. Windows actually controls DOS, not the other way
>around.
It would have been a lot nicer had Microsoft taken the OS/2 approach
and created a real 32-bit kernel capable of running isolated VDMs (or
real DOS boot images) with configurable selective hardware access for
purposes of backwards compatibility.
That, plus a decent filesystem, would have created a winner (and not
just in terms of market share).
Instead, they delivered what was essentially a 32-bit version of their
Windows 3.x product with a better desktop paradigm and the same old FAT
filesystem we all knew and hated.
Bill Stewart
> While Windows 9x might be an OS by some definitions, it most
> certainly isn't the paragon of 32-bit OS design that Microsoft made
> it out to be during its lengthy "Chicago" marketing campaign.
I agree with you. While Win9x was not any kind of a "rewrite" of any
kind, it would have been better if M$ had been accurate in their
descriptions of their product. While a 32-bit OS, it still ran DOS in
V86 mode. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, but you're right,
it's not what they said it was.
> It would have been a lot nicer had Microsoft taken the OS/2 approach
> and created a real 32-bit kernel capable of running isolated VDMs (or
> real DOS boot images) with configurable selective hardware access
> for purposes of backwards compatibility.
I agree. But at least now we have VMWare. :-)
> It would have been a lot nicer had Microsoft taken the OS/2 approach
> and created a real 32-bit kernel capable of running isolated VDMs (or
> real DOS boot images) with configurable selective hardware access for
> purposes of backwards compatibility.
The Win9x "success" story is interesting in light of Microsoft's
insistence that Win9x was somehow a "rewrite." I'm not that interested
in using version 1.0 of Microsoft anything, let alone a new OS. But of
course, Windows 95 is really just DOS 7.0/Windows 4.0.
Bill
Richard Steiner
Bill Stewart <llib.t...@yrautromhcnerf.moc> spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>> It would have been a lot nicer had Microsoft taken the OS/2 approach
>> and created a real 32-bit kernel capable of running isolated VDMs (or
>> real DOS boot images) with configurable selective hardware access
>> for purposes of backwards compatibility.
>
>I agree. But at least now we have VMWare. :-)
You might. I don't have to use anything like that yet, although I'm
probably going to obtain a copy of Serenity's SVISTA/2 when it comes
out (since it'll support most of the platforms I'm interested in).
>The Win9x "success" story is interesting in light of Microsoft's
>insistence that Win9x was somehow a "rewrite." I'm not that interested
>in using version 1.0 of Microsoft anything, let alone a new OS. But of
>course, Windows 95 is really just DOS 7.0/Windows 4.0.
It was fairly good for what it was, but it was frustrating as heck to
be an advocate of an alternative platform during the long-term Win95
disinformation campaign... Oh well. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Peter Karlsson
> Visit http://www.jpsoft.com/download.htm#free to download a copy of
> 4DOS, which is now freeware.
Hmm, is there any DOS based installer for the freeware 4DOS version
available? The MS-DOS installation I want to install this on doesn't have
Windows (it's running inside DOSEMU under Linux...). I unzipped the EXE,
but couldn't find any DOS based installer (earlier versions used to have a
batch file that would be started the first time I run 4DOS).
I still have a couple of 4DOS installations on other machines, which
currently are running 6.0 (I registered 5.5 (and the then-current 4OS/2)
and got a free upgrade to 6.0, but never upgraded beyond that). These
machines are running Windows, can the Windows installer be used to upgrade
such an installation (which was done using the DOS based scripts) without
ruining the setup?
--
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
R.A.G. Seely
news:opsdpw9yc...@news.online.no:
> Joe Caverly:
>
>> Visit http://www.jpsoft.com/download.htm#free to download a
>> copy of
>> 4DOS, which is now freeware.
>
> Hmm, is there any DOS based installer for the freeware 4DOS
> version available? The MS-DOS installation I want to install
> this on doesn't have Windows (it's running inside DOSEMU under
> Linux...). I unzipped the EXE, but couldn't find any DOS based
> installer (earlier versions used to have a batch file that
> would be started the first time I run 4DOS).
>
> I still have a couple of 4DOS installations on other machines,
> which currently are running 6.0 (I registered 5.5 (and the
> then-current 4OS/2) and got a free upgrade to 6.0, but never
> upgraded beyond that). These machines are running Windows, can
> the Windows installer be used to upgrade such an installation
> (which was done using the DOS based scripts) without ruining
> the setup?
?? What installation is necessary for 4DOS? You just put the files
in a directory and run 4dos.com. (Or is the free version somehow
different from the previous packages?)
--
-= rags =-
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Mike Bessy
there solely to appease the Windows users who don't feel a program is
worth having unless it includes a large clumsy GUI-based installer.
If you only have the "Windows installer" EXE, unzip it to a safe place
and get rid of all the useless files (file*.dat;*.dll;*wise*). The
remaining files are all you need to run 4DOS (invoke 4dos.com). Those
files can easily be zipped into a 700K or so archive for transport to
other machines.
The only external modification you may want to make (for DOS boots) is
to set 4dos.com as the permanent primary shell (the "shell=" directive
in CONFIG.SYS), but that's entirely optional and easily reversible.
Yes, 4dos 7.50 works fine under dosemu, as expected.
>> From Peter Karlsson on 9/2/2004 4:14 PM:
> Joe Caverly:
>
>> Visit http://www.jpsoft.com/download.htm#free to download a copy of
>> 4DOS, which is now freeware.
>
>
> Hmm, is there any DOS based installer for the freeware 4DOS version
> available? The MS-DOS installation I want to install this on doesn't
> have Windows (it's running inside DOSEMU under Linux...). I unzipped
> the EXE, but couldn't find any DOS based installer (earlier versions
> used to have a batch file that would be started the first time I run
> 4DOS).
>
> I still have a couple of 4DOS installations on other machines, which
> currently are running 6.0 (I registered 5.5 (and the then-current
> 4OS/2) and got a free upgrade to 6.0, but never upgraded beyond that).
> These machines are running Windows, can the Windows installer be used
> to upgrade such an installation (which was done using the DOS based
> scripts) without ruining the setup?
>
--
Mike Bessy
one (750.129). The only difference is that there's no need to
purchase/register it.
In fact, it even still comes with the now useless BR4DOS.EXE and the old
25 February 04 help file.
>> From R.A.G. Seely on 9/2/2004 4:39 PM:
>
> ?? What installation is necessary for 4DOS? You just put the files
> in a directory and run 4dos.com. (Or is the free version somehow
> different from the previous packages?)
>
--
CBFalconer
> From R.A.G. Seely on 9/2/2004 4:39 PM:
>>
>> ?? What installation is necessary for 4DOS? You just put the
>> files in a directory and run 4dos.com. (Or is the free version
>> somehow different from the previous packages?)
>
> The free 4DOS version (750.130) seems identical to the previous
> non-free one (750.129). The only difference is that there's no
> need to purchase/register it.
>
> In fact, it even still comes with the now useless BR4DOS.EXE and
> the old 25 February 04 help file.
It also contains detailed instructions for installation on plain
DOS systems. Follow the trail from the read.me file. Unzip it
into a suitable directory first, which you can do even though it
is an .exe file.
--
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews
Peter Karlsson
> ?? What installation is necessary for 4DOS?
Okay, so I'm lazy. The previous versions I did install (mind you, that was
6.0 since my registration was only valid to that version) did have a
script that would run when you started the 4DOS.COM, which would update
CONFIG.SYS and such for you, and make sure everything was set up
correctly. I couldn't find anything to that effect when I unzipped the
7.50 installer.
R.A.G. Seely
> R.A.G. Seely:
>
>> ?? What installation is necessary for 4DOS?
>
> Okay, so I'm lazy. The previous versions I did install (mind
> you, that was 6.0 since my registration was only valid to that
> version) did have a script that would run when you started the
> 4DOS.COM, which would update CONFIG.SYS and such for you, and
> make sure everything was set up correctly. I couldn't find
> anything to that effect when I unzipped the 7.50 installer.
So, as you've probably guessed by now, you can probably just unzip
the v7 over the v6 and all will run well. If you want to back up v6
first, so you can restore it if necessary, you don't even have to
worry about anything going wrong.