Best MSDOS version & text editor for old 8088 ?
Ian Staples
for simple keyboard data entry in the lab. It's currently running MSDOS 3.1
but seems capable of handling better stuff (I booted it from a floppy with
MSDOS 6.0 okay to do a virus scan of the thing) - even though Sperry had
some non-standard features with which they "improved" on the pure IBM PC :)
[The keyboard cursor pad plays havoc with some software; the CGA monitor
is *awful*; and a few other minor problems ;-) ]
I would be interested to have some knowledgeable advice on the best version
of MSDOS to run on the thing. It would seem to be a trade-off between
memory requirements for the OS and the features available, but I'm not all
that familiar with the size/features comparisons of the various versions
above 3.1, so your guidance would be appreciated. I think the machine has
a "full 640k of memory" - but it might just be one of those old 512k things
[still looking for an old copy of MEMMAP - or a screwdriver ;-) ]
One of the nicest features of modern versions of MSDOS is XCOPY with its
various options, but I don't know when this came in.
Advice on a good little text editor for the 8088 would also be useful.
I looked into using VDE, but it thinks the cursor pad keys are "block text"
keys :) [These cursor keys are separate from the number pad cursor keys,
but are activated by a "cursor keys" button similar to the Num Lock key]
Advice by e-mail would be nice, but if you want to post please note that
followup-to is set to aus.computers.ibm-pc.
Thank you in anticipation,
Ian S.
--
Ian Staples E-mail : ia...@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA Phone : +61 (0)70 921 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880 Fax : +61 (0)70 923 593 " " "
Thoma...@user.aenf.wau.nl
>From: ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples)
>Subject: Best MSDOS version & text editor for old 8088 ?
>Summary: Best features/size compromise for MSDOS on PC clone with 8088 cpu?
Dear Ian:
Sorry, I forgot:
1. DOS 3.3 has XCOPY. I thing it was introduced there.
(Together with that CODEPAGE/PREPARE stuff, which is useless)
2. Spreadsheet: Multiplan 3.0 by MICROSOFT ! (grin!!)
all the software I mentioned will also run on 512k RAM, and
all of it fits on a single 720K disk.
It is amazing what you can do with small programs.
Thomas
Thoma...@user.aenf.wau.nl
>From: ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples)
>Subject: Best MSDOS version & text editor for old 8088 ?
I used my LapTop 8086, 640K, 2*720K, 0 HD, LCD to prepare my thesis in
1991. (It still runs fine)
The following software ran very good, (leaving nothing to be desired):
DOS: MSDOS 3.3
Language: Turbo Pascal 5.5 (still use it on 486.....)
Copy&Disk: XTREE 2 or XTREE PRO 1.? (small or power )
Program-Editor: Turbo-Pascal 5.5
Text-Editor: Chiwriter 2 (works also with LaserJet)
Utilities: Norton Util 3 (plain vanilla)
Plot-Program: Grapher 1.75 (great & flexible)
The following software did not run satisfactory:
Word Perfect 3
AutoCad 2.6
Turbo C
Nowadays I have seen some Shareware-Texteditors, try them
since Chiwriter is a little special.... :-)
Unfortunately there at the bottom of a big box now, gathering dust.
(I myself use WPWIN 5.2 now)
Hope it helps
Thomas
Jonathan Ellis
>In article <Cy6Du...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au> ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples) writes:
>>From: ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples)
>>Subject: Best MSDOS version & text editor for old 8088 ?
>
>
[turbo c did not run well]
Turbo c 1.0, and I think 2.0, worked fine on mine.
Jonathan Ellis
David Taylor
and size. The most useful editor I found was a very old version of
PC Write (~50k) which could only edit files up to 64k in length. It
has load of neat features though (keystroke recording and playback
was my favourite) and is pretty quick. It only had a single 360k
floppy so I would run a ram disk with core DOS utils on it. Worked
like a charm.
I have upgraded since though with a 30meg HD and a new version
of PC Write. Oh, and Minix of course. :-)
Matthias Kring
In article <38mr61$b...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, da...@qtac.edu.au (David Taylor) writes...
>On my old faithful I still use DOS 3.3 which can't be beat for features
>and size. The most useful editor I found was a very old version of
>PC Write (~50k) which could only edit files up to 64k in length. It
>has load of neat features though (keystroke recording and playback
>was my favourite) and is pretty quick.
I also recommend DOS 3.3 and PCwrite.
DOS 3.3 was a very good DOS version, it was small and already had some
nice features (like XCOPY).
PCwrite is Shareware, but I do not recommend versions 4 and greater.
It's not longer what it used to be in 2.71 or 3.03. (I once registered
2.71 and bought the German 3.03, but I never got an upgrade info for 4.x -
but when I tried the 4.x shareware version, I was very disappointed,
so I switched to a word processor under Windows, but I still
use PCW 3.03 for quick editing, and it's keystrokes are WordStar(tm)
compatible) - The good old WordStar will also run on an 8088, of course,
but it may be difficult to get ...
If you prefer a free editor, and if you like UN*X, you may want to use
ELVIS, which is a very nice vi clone.
If you like VMS, you may take SEDT.
Some people swear on QEDIT, which is also shareware.
I you need a "commercial" editor [some companies bookkeepers do not accept
buying shareware :-(], you may look for the Norton Editor (esp. the now
called NCE Norton Classic Editor.
Hope this helps.
Matthias
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Kring kr...@sieus2.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment GmbH Stolberger Str. 78 D-50933 Koeln
----- TRY MY NEW SPECIAL OFFER: SIGNATURES FOR RENT -----
Gary Kuhn
> On my old faithful I still use DOS 3.3 which can't be beat for features
Couldn't agree more with David. I just downgraded from DOS 6.22 back to
Compaq DOS 3.31 last weekend. The last straw was when my favorite
keyboard character stuffer, PC-Mag's key-fake.com, didn't work
under 6.22. Had nothing to do with emm386 or himem, either.
> and size. The most useful editor I found was a very old version of
> PC Write (~50k) which could only edit files up to 64k in length. It
> has load of neat features though (keystroke recording and playback
> was my favourite) and is pretty quick. It only had a single 360k
> floppy so I would run a ram disk with core DOS utils on it. Worked
> like a charm.
Again, I agree. PC-Write Version 2.55. Comes with complete
documentation as well. Control-@ for record, grey-* for playback of macros.
Dynamite from a RAM disk.
> I have upgraded since though with a 30meg HD and a new version
> of PC Write. Oh, and Minix of course. :-)
Similarly:
1. I put a Cyrix 20/40 processor and a WD2540 in my Portable 386.
2. I bought a new PC-Write (but I use the old one).
3. I got MKS Toolkit.
Rarely have I ever been so completely in agreement with s.o. else's advice.
Gary Kuhn
Leonard N. Bloksberg
the older machines won't take it so I use 3.3) as an OS. For programs, I
set them up with WP5.1 for DOS (IMHO the best word processor/text editor
for DOS that will ever be written), and MS Word (I like 3.n, but others like
5.5), and an enet card/modem to run email.
.
If you happen across any old machines like this that are scheduled for
disposal, I collect them and give them away to needy type folks. I have some
connections in less developed nations abroad, and some lonely elderly people
in the states who can't get out, and could benefit from the contact by email.
.
Thanks
Dr. Leonard N. Bloksberg
blok...@pilot.msu.edu
.
.
.
Unknown
>In article <Cy6Du...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au> ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples) writes:
>
>
>Sorry, I forgot:
>
>1. DOS 3.3 has XCOPY. I thing it was introduced there.
> (Together with that CODEPAGE/PREPARE stuff, which is useless)
>2. Spreadsheet: Multiplan 3.0 by MICROSOFT ! (grin!!)
>
>all the software I mentioned will also run on 512k RAM, and
>all of it fits on a single 720K disk.
>It is amazing what you can do with small programs.
Too right... My C64 has some Great utilities...
(ok, so this is an IBM group... MY 8086 won't complain.)
----- Josh Mayo. JM...@scu.edu.au - Commodore 64 FANATIC
Astronomy Ireland
: I set up all our old 8086, 8088, and 286 computers with MS-DOS 5.0 (some of
: the older machines won't take it so I use 3.3) as an OS. For programs, I
: set them up with WP5.1 for DOS (IMHO the best word processor/text editor
: for DOS that will ever be written), and MS Word (I like 3.n, but others like
: 5.5), and an enet card/modem to run email.
What fotware do you use with the modems?
I'm disappointed that TELIX (EGA on an 8MHz 8086) won't display
greaterthan 480 characters per second (the modem can supply data approx. 5
times faster!).
--
David Moore BSc FRAS, Editor of "Astronomy & Space" magazine.
(a...@iol.ie) Chairman, Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1.
Tel: +353-1-459 8883. Fax: +353-1-459 9933.
________Irish News: 1550-111-442 (calls cost upto 58p/minute)________
_____U.K.: 0891-88-1950 (39p/min cheap, 49p/min all other times)_____
Leonard N. Bloksberg
> Leonard N. Bloksberg (blok...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
> : the older machines won't take it so I use 3.3) as an OS. For programs, I
> : set them up with WP5.1 for DOS (IMHO the best word processor/text editor
> : for DOS that will ever be written), and MS Word (I like 3.n, but others like
> : 5.5), and an enet card/modem to run email.
>
> I'm disappointed that TELIX (EGA on an 8MHz 8086) won't display
> greaterthan 480 characters per second (the modem can supply data approx. 5
> times faster!).
>
> --
> David Moore BSc FRAS, Editor of "Astronomy & Space" magazine.
> (a...@iol.ie) Chairman, Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1.
> Tel: +353-1-459 8883. Fax: +353-1-459 9933.
> ________Irish News: 1550-111-442 (calls cost upto 58p/minute)________
> _____U.K.: 0891-88-1950 (39p/min cheap, 49p/min all other times)_____
>
>
have used it on many old machines and it is a joy to work with. Much easier
than many newer expensive programs. I got it off my local simtel server free.
Good luck.
Lenny Bloksberg
blok...@pilot.msu.edu
,
,
DR & DK Alomes
>Subject: Best MSDOS version & text editor for old 8088 ?
>Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 11:42:02 GMT
>We look like being able to get hold of an old Sperry 8088 PC clone to use
>for simple keyboard data entry in the lab. It's currently running MSDOS 3.1
>
I've been using an 8088 for YEARs(640k ram and EGA!!), and I've found dos5 to
be the last practical OS 'cause dos6 etc are just too big! (in HD space mainly)
but definately copy stuff like dos6's move and intrlnk etc over they run just
fine in '5.
:) have a nice day.
Jason.
Leigh Hart
Sounds good - as far as text editors go, I wouldn't go past Qedit :-)
Macros, easy to use, uses familiar wordstar keys as well as its own,
solid, etc...
Cheers
Leigh
--
| "By the time they had diminished | Leigh Hart |
| from 50 to 8, the other dwarves | <ha...@eppie.apana.org.au> |
| began to suspect 'Hungry' ..." | C/- 195 Gilles Street |
| -- Gary Larson, "The Far Side" | Adelaide SA 5006 |
Kevin D. Quitt
The best programmers' editor for any Intel processor or version of DOS
is Epsilon, from Lugaru. Provides virtual memory on any processor, so
any number of files of any size can be simultaneously edited. It's not a
word processor, but does support line-wrap and indentation. Dos 5 is fine.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Claude Frantz
I recommand you: E88. It is shareware, a fine product.
--
Claude F. (cla...@bauv106.bauv.unibw-muenchen.de)
This message may contain opinions which are not shared by my employer.
The facts can speak for themselves.
John Saunders
tears of frustration when they removed it. ;-}
Flames to /dev/null please :-0
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John SAUNDERS - AARnet jo...@rd.scitec.com.au - #include <stddisclaimer.h> |
| SCITEC Communication Systems - Phone +61 2 428 9541 - Fax +61 2 418 6954 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Morten Welinder
>No no, the BEST editor for DOS is definately EDLIN.COM. I cried
>tears of frustration when they removed it. ;-}
I have wonderful news for you then: in PC-DOS 6.3 it's back!
Morten
Le Guerrier Louis-Luc
Wonderful too, in PC-DOS 6.1 it's there too! I used it last week to edit
a 2 MB file. MS editor donesn't take because the file is too big. Same thing
fot TED, and the Windows editors.
Louis-LUc
OLE-MAGNUS OLSEN
>jo...@rd.scitec.com.au (John Saunders) writes:
In PC DOS it's never been gone. Microsoft removed some seldom used and/or
obsolete utilities and files, such as Edlin, Backup (made obsolete by
MSBACKUP) etc., in MS-DOS 6 and put them on a supplemental disk (since MS-DOS
6.2, DosShell has also had to reside there), while IBM never removed those.
Personally, I hate line editors!
--
Magnum Ole-Magn...@hiof.no (mail)
ol...@sofus.hiof.no (finger)
Ole M. Olsen, Peder Colbjoernsensgt. 5, 1767 Halden, Norway (snail)
Adrian Ruzsicska
>In article <Cz3rz...@odin.diku.dk> te...@diku.dk (Morten Welinder) writes:
>
>>jo...@rd.scitec.com.au (John Saunders) writes:
>
>>>No no, the BEST editor for DOS is definately EDLIN.COM. I cried
>>>tears of frustration when they removed it. ;-}
>
>>I have wonderful news for you then: in PC-DOS 6.3 it's back!
>
Those having problems with attempting to edit large files who would
like a little more then edlin has to offer, may wish to try some of
the UNIX editors which have been ported to DOS.
Two worthy of consideration, and which are available on archie.au... again
under simtel-20, are:
editor/pcvile.zip
editor/vim20bin.zip
I noticed also that there are over 180 files in this directory including
many editors (in addition to support files). Hopefully you can find something
there to suit your own needs.
Adrian Ruzsicska
r...@it.ntu.edu.au
James Hall
whether or not EDLIN should appear in Free-DOS. At this point, I have
it marked as 'not implemented' on our task list, but someone has
offered to write one.
--Jim Hall
John Saunders
If you supply another editor that can handle large files then I wouldn't
bother to make it a priority. If it was included it would be more of a
curiosity than a valuable addition. The microsoft editor is OK except
for large files. The PC-DOS editor is hard to use and I don't know how
it handles large files. I would prefer a more capable editor based on
MSDOS's EDIT.COM.
This Free-DOS is interesting. Can you post some info about how it started,
what the target for compatibility is, what time frame, etc. Need any help?
My knowledge of DOS internals is limited, but I have been writing utility
programs for ages.
S Widlake
>From: fre...@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu (James Hall)
>Subject: Re: Edlin's back (was Re: Best MSDOS version & text editor for old
>8088?)
>Date: 16 Nov 1994 16:20:10 GMT
>--Jim Hall
Please, please give us EDLIN (as well as MIRROR) - then we only need to
"learn" _one_ simple text editor to edit Config and Autoexec instead of
one from MS IBM Novell et al - ie. it would (continue to) be a standard
MIRROR should never have been dropped! Undelete should (IMHO) have been
"enhanced" to actually use it...
Cheers,
S.
- --
.sig II Still Under Construction ...
r...@crl.com
I seem to remember seeing batch files that operate by firing up EDLIN
and having it take its commands from a text file (redirected stdin).
In the interests of 'not breaking more that one has to', and since someone
has offered to write one, perhaps you should include it.
Ian Staples
>The microsoft editor is OK except for large files. ...
>I would prefer a more capable editor based on MSDOS's EDIT.COM.
My main complaint is that there doesn't seem to be any way of using it
to either write out a marked block or read another file into the one
being edited. I need these features most days playing with data files.
EDIT is also *very* slow on big search and replace jobs.
Oh. And my *main* complaint about the dimwitted bloody thing - it defaults
back to *.TXT every time you go to File Open! Anything with any brain
would default back to the last opened file to give you a chance to simply
edit the name to get the next file. I find this especially annoying because
I handle a lot of similar files following a naming convention to make them
easy to handle one after the other, and they obviously can't all have .TXT
as the extension, so they don't even show in the open files window where you
could at least select one with Jerry.
Rob Stout
> I would very much like to hear from people (via postings) about
> whether or not EDLIN should appear in Free-DOS. At this point, I have
> it marked as 'not implemented' on our task list, but someone has
Don't include it, just because it is too embarrassing. If free-dos is
free you are allowed to use any unix source for an editor (like joe or vi).
Unlike TED or EDLIN they are usually quite advanced too.
Bye,
Rob.
--
Email: st...@tardis.et.tudelft.nl -- Tel: +31 15 783643 or +31 15 625214
<a href = "http://einstein.et.tudelft.nl/~stout/"> My own homepage </a>
Tom Almy
>In article <Cz3rz...@odin.diku.dk> te...@diku.dk (Morten Welinder) writes:
>>I have wonderful news for you then: in PC-DOS 6.3 it's back!
>Wonderful too, in PC-DOS 6.1 it's there too!
The answer to this is that *Microsoft* dropped it from their DOS releases
(6.0x and 6.2x), while IBM kept it in theirs (6.1 and 6.3). For instance,
EDLIN appears in the just-released OS/2 3.0 (along with 3 OS/2 native
ASCII editors, and QBASIC without the EDIT front end).
--
Tom Almy
tom....@tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Magnum
I don't really care about EDLIN, but I think you should include a more
"familiar" sort of, more intuitive, editor than the EMACS I saw when I last
looked into your FTP area.
You should strive to achieve more of an MS-/PC DOS look and feel, and not
just take any freeware utilities you can find. This might cost you some more
time, probably having to write several of the utilities from scratch, but it
will, in my opinion, be worth it.
By the way, how's the work on the kernel coming along?
John Saunders
> >The microsoft editor is OK except for large files. ...
> >I would prefer a more capable editor based on MSDOS's EDIT.COM.
> My main complaint is that there doesn't seem to be any way of using it
> to either write out a marked block or read another file into the one
> being edited. I need these features most days playing with data files.
Just keep a copy of VI on hand for those situations. I have XVI which includes
mouse support and multiple files in split window support.
> Oh. And my *main* complaint about the dimwitted bloody thing - it defaults
> back to *.TXT every time you go to File Open!
It's a simple hack to make it default to *.* which is more useful. Just edit
it using Write that comes with Windows. When it ask's if you want to convert
the file answer no. DO a search on *.TXT (it only appears once). Select and
copy the character after *.TXT (it's a NULL). Backspace over the TXT, add
the * then paste the previously copyied NULL twice.
Mike Klaene
: I would very much like to hear from people (via postings) about
tasks it is the perfect editor.
Mike Klaene, N3GAQ
ADP Dealer Service, Portland, OR
Glen Blankenship
> Oh. And my *main* complaint about the dimwitted bloody thing - it defaults
> back to *.TXT every time you go to File Open!
That's easy to hack. Search the executable for "*.TXT" as a zero-terminated
string. Replace it with any zero-terminated string the same length or
shorter. "*.*" is a good choice.
> Anything with any brain would default back to the last opened file to
> give you a chance to simply edit the name to get the next file.
Yeah, well... But hacking that would be a bit tougher. :)
(Hmm. But maybe possible. Hmmm...)
---
Glen Blankenship
obo...@netcom.com
g.blan...@genie.geis.com
John Egan
: >I would prefer a more capable editor based on MSDOS's EDIT.COM.
# Not to mention it locks up if you use TSR's that read the keyboard.. As I
was cutting and pasting using a TSR ... I lost a lot of text....
: My main complaint is that there doesn't seem to be any way of using it
: to either write out a marked block or read another file into the one
: being edited. I need these features most days playing with data files.
: EDIT is also *very* slow on big search and replace jobs.
I had a good look around and have replaced it ( and QBASIC ) with a small
text editor called "AHED" ... My only gripe is that it can't display a
DIR, or jump to DOS so you can look up other files... But seeing as I use
a Task_Swapper anyway this isn't a problem to me.
( Oh yeah! ... It does have a help menu, but commands are Wordstar ... If
you've been programming a while then you probably know them anyway .... If you
haven't you'll need another editor....)
: Oh. And my *main* complaint about the dimwitted bloody thing - it defaults
: back to *.TXT every time you go to File Open! Anything with any brain
: would default back to the last opened file to give you a chance to simply
.... Sooo true... Nothing like trying to edit a ".BAT" file only to have
it announce "new file" .....Duh!!! Pretty poor programming from
Microsomething .....
Craig Sanders
The best thing about EDLIN is that a good support technician can drive
the thing over the phone, just by carefully telling the user exactly
what keys to press. This is possible because the tech doesn't have to
worry about what line the cursor is on, s/he can specify which line to
act on as part of the command.
It allows you to avoid the inevitable problems when the user you
are helping misinterprets what you are saying and screws up the
config.sys file to an even worse state than it was before...because
no interpretation is possible, you tell the user exactly what keys to
press, and ask them specific, focused questions about what to look for.
e.g.
"OK, type l and hit return. Which line number says something like
device=foobar.sys? aha. line 3, ok. type 3d and hit return"...brings
back some (horrid) memories... :-)
If you've ever had to fix a botched autoexec.bat or config.sys over the
phone you'll know how important this is.
(fortunately, i haven't had to do this for a couple of years - but i'd
hate to be in a situation where I had to, only to find out that a line
oriented editor wasn't available)
"Organise a strike in your school or workplace on the grounds that it
does not satisfy your need for indolence & spiritual beauty."
-- Hakim Bey, The Temporary Autonomous Zone
James Hall
free you are allowed to use any unix source for an editor (like joe or vi).
Unlike TED or EDLIN they are usually quite advanced too.
Hmmm... Interesting the polarity of this issue. Maybe this will help
to spurn a little more discussion:
We have two editors right now: Yossi Gil's TERSE and Russ Nelson's
Freemacs. Both authors chose to associate their editors with
Free-DOS. TERSE is a fine editor, and is extremely small. I keep a
copy on a rescue diskette in case my system ever goes down. Freemacs
is be far the best free DOS editor I've used for programming and other
general stuff.
So, given this, is it still necessary to include a copy of EDLIN?
Only one person has written me regarding using EDLIN's control file
capability.
Later!
--Jim Hall
David Walker
editors are a leftover from the days of 110 baud teletypes and really
dumb terminals (glass ttys, pronounced glass tities). I admit they do
have a use in splitting up those big files so they can be edited with a
real dos editor, like MicroEMACS. I use an msdos version of ed, the unix
line editor however. Or the split program.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[ David Walker ]
[ dwa...@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13] ]
[ homepage: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwalker ]
David Walker
: I would very much like to hear from people (via postings) about
: --Jim Hall
Tell me about Free-DOS. I'd use it just to not have any
microsoft code on my system. I might even be able to contribute
something. My life, however, is too short to make another line editor.
David
David Walker
: jo...@rd.scitec.com.au (John Saunders) writes:
: >The microsoft editor is OK except for large files. ...
: >I would prefer a more capable editor based on MSDOS's EDIT.COM.
: My main complaint is that there doesn't seem to be any way of using it
: to either write out a marked block or read another file into the one
: being edited. I need these features most days playing with data files.
: EDIT is also *very* slow on big search and replace jobs.
Get sed or awk for dos for those big search and replace jobs.
Find them in the GNUISH directory at lots of ftp sites.
: Oh. And my *main* complaint about the dimwitted bloody thing - it defaults
: back to *.TXT every time you go to File Open! Anything with any brain
: would default back to the last opened file to give you a chance to simply
: edit the name to get the next file. I find this especially annoying because
: I handle a lot of similar files following a naming convention to make them
: easy to handle one after the other, and they obviously can't all have .TXT
: as the extension, so they don't even show in the open files window where you
: could at least select one with Jerry.
If your really want a line editor, get a version of ed, the unix
line editor for msdos.
Ian Staples
>Hmmm... Interesting the polarity of this issue. Maybe this will help
>to spurn a little more discussion:
^^^^^^
Well, do you want more discussion or not? ;-)
It seems to me the main issue revolves around the objective of producing
Free-DOS (which is?) -- As someone pointed out, EDLIN has (had?) specific
uses that would be difficult to duplicate with other editors, so it could
be a shame to "break" applications depending on specific features of EDLIN.
But are there any still in use?
Again, a post received here this evening pointed out it may be a bit easier
to fix something over the phone with a line editor (but I can't say I'm
entirely convinced by the argument, unless you assume the user can't drive
his normal editor well enough to move the cursor to the line he can see
then delete it :)
One thing that has intrigued me in the debate is the frequent reference to
Unix-style options. Which is why I wonder who Free-DOS is intended for.
As one who was introduced to computing on the PDP-10 and moved from there
to MSDOS via a Tandy TRS-80 Model I, I am an initiate where Unix is
concerned, and I can't say I like vi (though I'm using it for this note).
I suspect most MSDOS uses would be totally at sea with Unix (most of them
are far enough from shore as it is :-) and its editors etc. On the other
hand, most MSDOS users really don't have any use for a "free DOS" because
you can't avoid getting it with the hardware these days. So who's it for,
and for what purpose?
Cheers, Ian S.
P.S. You also said:
>Freemacs is be far the best free DOS editor I've used for programming
>and other general stuff.
How does it compare with the commercial stuff? I played around with a number
of shareware editors a few years ago, but in general they weren't stable
enough for my tastes - too many ways to bomb them out or hang the whole
bloody system inadvertently. (Speaking from MSDOS of course :)
Rob Stout
Message-ID: <1991Jul11....@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: ne...@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Subject: The True Path (long)
Date: 11 Jul 91 03:17:31 GMT
Path:
ai-lab!mintaka!olivea!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!patl
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs,alt.slack
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 95
Xref: ai-lab alt.religion.emacs:244 alt.slack:1935
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
- ---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
- -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
- -rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
- -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem> ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
- ---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
James Hall
I don't really care about EDLIN, but I think you should include a more
"familiar" sort of, more intuitive, editor than the EMACS I saw when I last
looked into your FTP area.
You should strive to achieve more of an MS-/PC DOS look and feel, and not
just take any freeware utilities you can find. This might cost you some more
time, probably having to write several of the utilities from scratch, but it
will, in my opinion, be worth it.
Have you checked out TERSE in the FT area? It's not a bad editor. I
like it for doing small-ish things like writing batch files and
updating CONFIG.SYS. It is really easy to learn... Yossi Gil did a
good job... and I haven't peeked into the manual _yet_.
By the way, how's the work on the kernel coming along?
The kernel is really nice. I've been testing it with several
different DOS programs.. editors, spreadsheets, compilers, ... Very
comprehensive work. Pat (from DOSEMU) worked hard on it, and it
shows!
Later!
--Jim Hall
Craig Sanders
> Again, a post received here this evening pointed out it may be a bit
> easier to fix something over the phone with a line editor (but I can't
> say I'm entirely convinced by the argument, unless you assume the user
> can't drive his normal editor well enough to move the cursor to the
> line he can see then delete it :)
If you've ever done tech support for a living, you'd know that most
users (or, alternatively, most people who call a support hotline) are
NOT capable of doing that. Or believe that they aren't capable, which
comes to the same thing. It's not a matter of being a bit easier -
quite often it is the difference between being possible and being
impossible.
IMO, a simple line-oriented text editor is essential for telephone
support. EDLIN does the job very well. ED may be better, i don't know
(i suspect it may be overkill for a Q&D text editor). It doesn't matter,
as long as one is included as part of the free-dos package.
Another nice thing about EDLIN was that almost every single dos computer
had it installed and in the executable path.
Here's a sample of some of the amusing things I have experienced as
a support technician. Yes, they actually do happen. A lot. Draw your
own conclusions about the state of the human race.
1. "Ok, now put the floppy in the drive and close the door."
<puzzled> "uhhh. yeah, hang on a minute"
<sounds of door slamming in the background>
"Allright, the door is closed...now what?"
2. "Where's the ANY key?"
3. "How big is your hard disk?"
"ummm...5 and a quarter inches, I think"
4. "send me a copy of the disk and I'll have a look at it"
"ok" (half a day later a *photocopy* of the disk is faxed to me)
Eric Noel
>fre...@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu (James Hall) writes:
>
>are far enough from shore as it is :-) and its editors etc. On the other
>hand, most MSDOS users really don't have any use for a "free DOS" because
>you can't avoid getting it with the hardware these days. So who's it for,
>and for what purpose?
However, libraries, schools, and companies that buy large quantities of
computer systems will probably be very interested in it.
You'd be amazed at the number of embedded systems running ms-dos, especially
in the POS industry. And even though the systems are designed with one
use/purpose/application in mind, they still have pay royalties to Microsoft,
or to General Software or Datalight, the two major dos clones currently out
there. A free version of dos would help reduce the cost of these systems.
Then of course, there are those who just can't let their money fall into
Bill's hands...
Eric
Travis Smith
This may not pertain to this particular newsgroup, but any help on the
subject would be GREATLY apreciated... I have been experimenting with
interfacing the LPT2 port on my PC. I have no problem writing to the port,
(0378h) the TTL levels come out perfectly. My problem is reading from the port.
In order to drive the lines, I must connect the lines DIRECTLY to Vcc or
ground. No TTL driver is capable of this. It seems the the output buffer is
still enabled, as the last data writen out is the default input. I don't want
to override the output buffer. Question: how do I properly diable (tristate)
the output buffer in order to properly read the input?
Please respond via E-mail as I don't always get back to the groups
quick enough.
Thank you in advance!
-Travis J. Smith tra...@ssd.intel.com
Paul Schlyter
> Is this a joke? Have you been drinking? I know I am... Line editors
> are a leftover from the days of 110 baud teletypes and really dumb
> terminals (glass ttys, pronounced glass tities).
editors is to run it from a batch file.
> I admit they do have a use in splitting up those big files so they
> can be edited with a real dos editor, like MicroEMACS.
editor though.....
> I use an msdos version of ed, the unix line editor however. Or the
> split program.
editing arbitrarly large files ????
If you cannot afford e.g. Epsilon, you might consider trying to find
a used copy of good ol' Wordstar 3.3 or 3.4. It can edit very large
files. Sure, it's slow, some people thinks its command set stinks,
you ought to have twice as much free disk space as the size of the
file you intend to edit and even then its disk swapping may seem to
take "forever" when editing really large files. But it does the job,
and in only 64K of free RAM if needed !!
If you just want to view the file, V.D. Buerg's LIST utility may do
the job for you, no editor is needed. But I found a curious limit on
that utility -- when I tried to view a 40 MByte text file with LIST,
it would only allow me to view (roughly) the first 18 MBytes of
it !! Epsilon handled this file fine though. No, I didn't try
WordStar on it - I guess WordStar would puke when it would find
itself unable to write its swap file to the CD-ROM.... :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, SWEDEN
E_mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@ausys.se
Jonathan M. Elson
: interfacing the LPT2 port on my PC. I have no problem writing to the port,
: (0378h) the TTL levels come out perfectly. My problem is reading from the port.
: In order to drive the lines, I must connect the lines DIRECTLY to Vcc or
: ground. No TTL driver is capable of this. It seems the the output buffer is
: still enabled, as the last data writen out is the default input. I don't want
: to override the output buffer. Question: how do I properly diable (tristate)
: the output buffer in order to properly read the input?
You need a manual that gives the programming info on the 8255 PIO which is
used or emulated on REAL bi-directional parallel ports. Many I/O cards
do NOT have true bi-directional ports. Thje way they work is that the data
output lines are driven by a 74LS374 octal D flip-flop or similar chip,
and the inputs are on signals such as character acknowledge, printer ready,
and paper out. I've seen this on many parallel cards. This is enough to
make a printer work, and is also enough to make those parallel port software
license keys "dongles" work, but it is not enough hardware to do real
8-bit bi-directional parallel I/O. If you hook +5 to the output of a 74LS374
which is pulling low, it will eventually destroy the chip. Just look on
your I/O card, and trace the lines from the parallel connector back. If
most of them go to a 74LS373 or 374, you DON'T have a bi-dir port. If
they go to a very large chip, some kind of gate array or a real 8255, then
it is probably a true bi-dir parallel port.
Ian Staples
>
>Why not get a real DOS editor, that's fullscreen AND capable of
>editing arbitrarly large files ????
>
>If you cannot afford e.g. Epsilon, you might consider trying to find
>a used copy of good ol' Wordstar 3.3 or 3.4. It can edit very large
>files.
Just what I was about to suggest ;-)
>it !! Epsilon handled this file fine though. No, I didn't try
>WordStar on it - I guess WordStar would puke when it would find
>itself unable to write its swap file to the CD-ROM.... :-)
My memory is vague on this, but wasn't it possible to point the old CP/M
versions of WordStar at the other drive somehow, of a full twin-drive
system? :)
Cheers, Ian S.
Charles Hubbard
>You need a manual that gives the programming info on the 8255 PIO which is
>used or emulated on REAL bi-directional parallel ports. Many I/O cards
>do NOT have true bi-directional ports. Thje way they work is that the data
>output lines are driven by a 74LS374 octal D flip-flop or similar chip,
>and the inputs are on signals such as character acknowledge, printer ready,
>and paper out. I've seen this on many parallel cards. This is enough to
>make a printer work, and is also enough to make those parallel port software
>license keys "dongles" work, but it is not enough hardware to do real
>8-bit bi-directional parallel I/O. If you hook +5 to the output of a 74LS374
>which is pulling low, it will eventually destroy the chip.
I agree with you completely that applying +5 volts to the data lines is a
bad thing to do if the data lines are low. However the opposite may not
be true. I have seen people set all the data lines high and then allow
external signals to pull those lines low. I'm not convinced this is a
totally safe thing to do either but I think it is safer than trying to
drive low lines high. I think this method is outlined in the parallel
port FAQ (with cautions). We have systems which have used this method
for years with no apparent damage.
Of course the best thing to do is get a true bi-di port. :)
C.
David Walker
: In article <CzHuF...@eskimo.com>, David Walker <dwa...@eskimo.com> wrote:
:
: One thing you can do with EDLIN that cannot be done with most other
: editors is to run it from a batch file.
True, my clone of ed also runs from batch file input.
: > I admit they do have a use in splitting up those big files so they
: > can be edited with a real dos editor, like MicroEMACS.
:
: I wouldn't call an editor that's unable to edit big files a "real"
: editor though.....
Ms-dos isn't a real operating system, that's where the real
problem lies. I've never found a file too big to edit with MicroEmacs
under unix.
: > I use an msdos version of ed, the unix line editor however. Or the
: > split program.
:
: Why not get a real DOS editor, that's fullscreen AND capable of
: editing arbitrarly large files ????
:
: If you cannot afford e.g. Epsilon, you might consider trying to find
: a used copy of good ol' Wordstar 3.3 or 3.4. It can edit very large
: files. Sure, it's slow, some people thinks its command set stinks,
: you ought to have twice as much free disk space as the size of the
: file you intend to edit and even then its disk swapping may seem to
: take "forever" when editing really large files. But it does the job,
: and in only 64K of free RAM if needed !!
I was just contemplating this, and I don't remember the last
time I had to edit a huge file. I have an old copy of Brief I could use.
I'm conserving my resources to convert to a unix clone. And yes, I too
think the Wordstar command set stinks.
Less, the unix pager converted to dos will also view and search
huge files.
Ian Staples
Robert W. Rapplean
: dwa...@eskimo.com (David Walker) writes:
: > And yes, I too think the Wordstar command set stinks.
: Why?
Personally, I hate their blocking technique "Mark beginning, mark end, go
elsewhere, do command"
Word perfect's "Mark Begining, go to end, do command" style is more
comfortable, but the Window's "highlight & cut" beats both. One of the
very few plusses I've found to Windoze.
Rob Rapplean
king...@crl.com
Geoframe User
That's interesting. I like the WS command set just because I'm used to it
but not enough to get into any religious wars about it. What I _really_
like is the WordStar blocking technique. What's really nice about it is
that it's persistant. You can do some block operation, move one of the
enpoints, and do some other block operation.
I've complained many times how inflexible the Windows/CUA highlight and
cut technique is.
--
Steve Garcia
gar...@bakersfield.geoquest.slb.com
Paul Vojta
Andrew Heald
>From: garcia@bkfsu1 (Geoframe User)
>Subject: Re: What's wrong with WordStar commands? [Was: Edlin's back ...]
>Date: 26 Nov 1994 22:08:42 GMT
>Robert W. Rapplean (king...@crl.com) wrote:
>: Ian Staples (ia...@qdpii.ind.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
>: : dwa...@eskimo.com (David Walker) writes:
>: : > And yes, I too think the Wordstar command set stinks.
>: : Why?
>: Personally, I hate their blocking technique "Mark beginning, mark end, go
>: elsewhere, do command"
>: Word perfect's "Mark Begining, go to end, do command" style is more
>: comfortable, but the Window's "highlight & cut" beats both. One of the
>: very few plusses I've found to Windoze.
>That's interesting. I like the WS command set just because I'm used to it
>but not enough to get into any religious wars about it. What I _really_
>like is the WordStar blocking technique. What's really nice about it is
>that it's persistant. You can do some block operation, move one of the
>enpoints, and do some other block operation.
I agree - the key to being happy with WS cmds is your level of familiarity
with it - if it's 2nd nature to you, then you can appreciate how portable it
is, which is what I really like about it.
Before griping about WS cmds you should remember their history as they pre-
date computer keyboards all looking the same, & were hence designed to work
on absolutely any keyboard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Heald (Electronics Engineer)
Industrial Research Ltd Email a.h...@irl.cri.nz
(Formerly part of the DSIR)
Communications Voice +64-4-569-0114
PO Box 31310 or +64-4-569-0444 ext 4114
Lower Hutt or +64-4-569-0000 ext 4114
New Zealand Fax +64-4-569-0754
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Egan
Beats the ** SHIT ** out of Wordperfect .... It's also pretty standard
stuff for programming purposes ....
David Walker
You've reminded me that's one of the features I like least about
Wordstar. I like being able to suck up several things, go elsewhere and
yank them back out.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[ David Walker dwa...@eskimo.com ]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
iv...@cc.usu.edu
> Robert W. Rapplean (king...@crl.com) wrote:
> : Word perfect's "Mark Begining, go to end, do command" style is more
> : comfortable, but the Window's "highlight & cut" beats both. One of the
> : very few plusses I've found to Windoze.
> cut technique is.
Just the other day I had to "highlight & cut" about 100 pages of a Word
document on a 386SX 16MHz. No fun; it takes the machine about 30 secs or
so to cross a page boundary anyway, so "highlight & cut" was "hold the button
down and find something interesting I can do with the other hand for a long
time".
--
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | Don't think of it as a 'new' computer, think of it as
iv...@cc.usu.edu | 'obsolete-ready'
Leonard Erickson
>Here's a sample of some of the amusing things I have experienced as
>a support technician. Yes, they actually do happen. A lot. Draw your
>own conclusions about the state of the human race.
> 1. "Ok, now put the floppy in the drive and close the door."
> <puzzled> "uhhh. yeah, hang on a minute"
> <sounds of door slamming in the background>
> "Allright, the door is closed...now what?"
> 2. "Where's the ANY key?"
> 3. "How big is your hard disk?"
> "ummm...5 and a quarter inches, I think"
> 4. "send me a copy of the disk and I'll have a look at it"
> "ok" (half a day later a *photocopy* of the disk is faxed to me)
I talked to someone who had that happen AND WAS ABLE TO FIX THE PROBLEM
BY USING THE PHOTOCOPY! Seems the user was using an old version of the
software, which was obvious from the label.
My two favorites:
1. a guy in accounting called up the tech at the next desk. Said his
computer was "hung", it'd been sitting there for about 10 minutes
not doing anything. So the tech, figuring there was some error, asked
"What's the *last* thing it says on the screen". User replies "Press
Enter to continue". Tech suggestes that the user try pressing the
enter key. User does so and hangs up. Tech loses it and when he quits
laughing tells the rest of us.
2. This was in the bad old days of the TRS-80. TRS-DOS had a lot of features
that MS-DOS still doesn't. One of them was "backup limited" files. And
passworded file access. This meant that software could be distributed
such that only a fixed number of copies could be made (unless you had a
sector editor and an intimate knowledge of the disk format).
This one fellow kept complaining that his backup copies of the program
kept going bad. Which meant he had to haul the original disk back to
RS tech support person (yes they had them back then!) and get the
backup counter reset. The tech was going nuts trying to figure out
*why* the copies kept going bad. She was finally reduced to walking him
thru the "backup" (Diskcopy to us MS-DOS types) procedure over the
phone (because it never happened in the store, only at his business)
Him: ok, it says "finshed with backup".
Her: ok, now what are you doing?
Him: I take the original disk out of drive 0 and put it away in the manual.
Her: ok...
Him: Now I take the backup and put it on the file cabinet.
Her: Put it on the file cabinet?
Him: Yeah, I take it out of the drive, put it back in its jacket and
stick it to the side of the file cabinet with a magnet...
Her: #%&&$#^*(*
--
Leonard Erickson leo...@qiclab.scn.rain.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard....@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (preferred)
shim!shim!zt...@csah.com
>If anybody's interested, I have a comp.com utility which I wrote a long
>time ago.
>
What is this comp.com utility?
--
+----------------------------+
+-----------+ Jesus Rafael LEE PUAY YORK +----------+
| jrlee%ztorrida%linuxpub%csah....@jaring.my |
| Jesus.Ra...@p1.f203.n600.z6.fidonet.org |
| uunet!m2xenix!puddle!6!600!203.1!Jesus.Rafael.Lee |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Geoframe User
: In article <3b8bla$k...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>, garcia@bkfsu1 (Geoframe User) writes:
: > Robert W. Rapplean (king...@crl.com) wrote:
: > : Word perfect's "Mark Begining, go to end, do command" style is more
: > : comfortable, but the Window's "highlight & cut" beats both. One of the
: > : very few plusses I've found to Windoze.
: > I've complained many times how inflexible the Windows/CUA highlight and
: > cut technique is.
: Just the other day I had to "highlight & cut" about 100 pages of a Word
: document on a 386SX 16MHz. No fun; it takes the machine about 30 secs or
: so to cross a page boundary anyway, so "highlight & cut" was "hold the button
: down and find something interesting I can do with the other hand for a long
: time".
There is a way around this. Start marking the block, than move to the end of
the document (or where ever you wish the block to end.) Press "Shift"
as you mark the end, and all the intervening space will be marked. Of
course, if you then decide that you want the beginning moved a line or two,
or a word, or whatever, well, tough luck. You start all over again.
--
Steve Garcia
gar...@bakersfield.geoquest.slb.com
iv...@cc.usu.edu
> You've reminded me that's one of the features I like least about
> Wordstar. I like being able to suck up several things, go elsewhere and
> yank them back out.
No problem. Do it all the time. Just put the last block down in front of the
new stuff you want to pick up and extend the block...
Akopov Mikhail
GU>iv...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
GU>: Just the other day I had to "highlight & cut" about 100 pages of a Word
GU>: document on a 386SX 16MHz. No fun; it takes the machine about 30 secs or
GU>: so to cross a page boundary anyway, so "highlight & cut" was "hold the button
GU>: down and find something interesting I can do with the other hand for a long
GU>: time".
GU>There is a way around this. Start marking the block, than move to the end of
^^^^^^^^^^ such a ways to do anything could be found even
in edlin :)
Well, my own expierence says the best for work with blocks is
MultiEdit. It has both Windose and Wordstar technologies and some
more.
I tuned ME to use keypad as function keys and do all the
block operations by the only little finger's movement. It's very fast
and convenient.
Vale! -Michael Akopov
P.S. Sorry for possible errors, English is my second language.
James W. Lynch
: Later!
: --Jim Hall
I'm still waiting for someone to post the reply to the question
that was posed several times, "What is FREEDOS?, Tell us more".
Thanks,
Jim.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lynch, Sales Analyst, Cray Research, Inc. / ARS: K4GVO
Southeast District, Phone: (404) 631-2254, Email: j...@cray.com
Suite 270, 200 Westpark Drive, Peachtree City, GA 30269
Geoframe User
: MultiEdit. It has both Windose and Wordstar technologies and some
: more.
: I tuned ME to use keypad as function keys and do all the
: block operations by the only little finger's movement. It's very fast
: and convenient.
Since Borland has eliminated their IDE and buried Brief, it may be time
for me to look at ME. Just got a catalog from Programmers Warehouse gushing
all over ME.
--
Steve Garcia
gar...@bakersfield.geoquest.slb.com
James Hall
--
I've posted the FAQ, Manifesto, and Task List to comp.os.msdos.misc a
couple of times, but I notice that this is being crossposted to
several other groups. Obviously, I never posted it there.
In short, Free-DOS is an Internet effort to write a free version of
DOS. We are starting from scratch on most utilities, but we are using
some editors and things that were already written (such as Freemacs by
Russ Nelson and Terse by Yossi Gil).
We _do_ have a kernel, and it works. A few bugs yet, but did anyone
expect otherwise at the outset? :-)
Free-DOS is freely distributed via anonymous ftp from sunsite.unc.edu
in the directory /pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/. You may want to check
out the Task List in the doc/ subdirectory for a list of the commands
that we have already implemented, and which are still open for
development. The Manifesto (also in doc/) tells about us more in
detail.
But you may not have time to grab it just now. Here is the Manifesto:
--cut here--
Free-DOS MANIFESTO
James Hall
James....@uwrf.edu
Ed. Oct. 16, 1994
CHANGES
An ftp site is now available for downloading Free-DOS at
sunsite.unc.edu in /pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos. Contact me at
fre...@sunsite.unc.edu about that.
A discussion forum has opened up on comp.os.msdos.misc. This is where
we plan to discuss our projects and our goals. Please feel free to
contribute to the discussion.
HISTORY
Free-DOS was announced as PD-DOS around the beginning of July, 1994,
as another implementation of DOS.
INTENTION
I would like to form a group that will, eventually, create another
implementation of MS-DOS. DOS appears to be a popular system, and
there is plenty of hardware already available that is ready to support
it. Microsoft will not develop DOS forever, and one cannot count on
commercial programming firms such as IBM or Digital to continue DOS.
I feel it is then up to those on the Internet to develop their own DOS
(hereafter, Free-DOS) and I feel there is a lot of support for this
type of project.
Free-DOS should, optimally, run on all levels of machines. It should
operate on processors as low as the 8088 with as little memory as
640k. Hopefully, the compressed installation should fit under 1.44M.
Free-DOS should not be targetted towards certain users. That is, the
end product should be something that programmers and non-programmers
may both enjoy and find useful.
I do not think there would be a problem to distribute optimized
versions of Free-DOS for the 80386 and above. But this remains a
project for the kernel writers.
PLAN
I imagine the Free-DOS project would be best handled by dividing
efforts into three subgroups:
UTILITIES - Main objective is to write new, clean versions of the
standard DOS utilities. These should all be able to run on any
current version of DOS, as low as MS-DOS 3.3. You may notice that
many of the DOS utilities have been moved out of the shell. This is
to facilitate maintenance and development.
DRIVERS - Goals include re-writing the device drivers for DOS,
including a new ANSI.SYS and COUNTRY.SYS. These should be
overlay-able on any version of DOS, as low as MS-DOS 3.3.
KERNEL - Main objective is to write a new DOS kernel, one that is
capable of running at least most of the current DOS software. The
ultimate test is to be able to run Windows and Doom. Secondary goals
might include working in some kind of multitasking support, even if
limited.
If I can get this Free-DOS project off the ground, I'd appreciate
someone taking over each of the three subgroups, so there'd be a
Utilities Leader, Driver Leader, and Kernel Leader. This person would
be in charge of maintaining code readability and for ensuring the
group's goals are being met. For example, the Utilities Leader would
also make sure that each utility includes at least the MS-DOS command
line arguments. The Leader should also make decisions concerning what
extensions will be permitted.
Much of the DOS utilities already exist as freeware, and a good
portion of that has been written by the Free Software Foundation. In
any case, I'd expect that the Utilities Group would be the first one
to accomplish all its goals. The Drivers Group would probably finish
next, and the kernel last due to its relative complexity. At each
stage of completion, I'd expect a major release to the public,
available via ftp sites.
One final note: I'd appreciate all the utilities to be written in
either C or the DOS batch language, to facilitate maintenance.
LEGAL STUFF
Any effort that goes into writing a Free-DOS would, of course, be
redistributed in both binary and source code form. Therefore, we urge
programmers to release their software under a distribution agreemend,
such as the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, which says in part from its
Preamble:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
D. 'Shag' Birchall
> : I would like to form a group that will, eventually, create another
> : implementation of MS-DOS. DOS appears to be a popular system, and
> : there is plenty of hardware already available that is ready to support
> : it. Microsoft will not develop DOS forever, and one cannot count on
> : commercial programming firms such as IBM or Digital to continue DOS.
>Are there any other reasons for Free-DOS other than those suggested above?
One really good reason:
The hardware demanded by commercially available operating systems continues
to increase, and users who are financially unable to upgrade their
computers to run the latest operating systems need an alternative.
Microsoft is not about to release a new system that will run on anything
less than a '386 with 4 megs of RAM. Nor is IBM. I've seen statistics
that say something like 85% of all PC-compatible computers currently in use
are not _capable_ of running Windows or OS/2, let alone NT, et cetera.
--
Dan 'Shag' Birchall - sh...@ios.com - User Support, Internet Online Services
Geoframe User
: While I think it is nice to have a freely available DOS, I do not understand
: the motivation behind it as outlined above. Once Microsoft comes up with an
: alternative to DOS, software companies will turn their attention to the new
: OS. As a result, the need for DOS will dwindle and this will also include
: Free-DOS. Five or six years ago, I would not have made this statement but
: it seems rather late in the game at this point.
Is Microsoft (or anyone else) working on an alternative to DOS? All I
see in the works are variations on the GUI theme, or other alternatives
which will be unable to run my apps.
This doesn't mean that I think that DOS is an ideal OS, but I think there
is and will continue to be a need for it. I don't think I'm ready
for linux at this point, and I haven't tried OS/2 yet. An OS without
a command line is definitely not in my future, so I probably won't
look to Microsoft. I have some older machines that won't run
any of these fancy OSs anyway, and I imagine that they aren't going
away any time soon. So, yes, the need for DOS may dwindle with time,
but its a bit too soon for the funeral. Since Microsoft is abandoning
DOS well before it's dead, it's nice to see that someone will be
supporting it for at least some time to come.
--
Steve Garcia
gar...@bakersfield.geoquest.slb.com
dennis keim
: The hardware demanded by commercially available operating systems continues
: to increase, and users who are financially unable to upgrade their
: computers to run the latest operating systems need an alternative.
: Microsoft is not about to release a new system that will run on anything
: less than a '386 with 4 megs of RAM. Nor is IBM. I've seen statistics
: that say something like 85% of all PC-compatible computers currently in use
: are not _capable_ of running Windows or OS/2, let alone NT, et cetera.
Another thing that comes to mind is the supposed long ago demise of COBOL.
Seems odd that there are still many a job listed in the local papers looking
for such programmers.
MS has also abandoned its DOS programming tools but fortunately there are
still companies putting out new tools for this environment. PowerBASIC is
continuing support for those QuickBasic programmers for example. Borland's
latest C/C++ setup also includes DOS options.
Dennis
Garrett P Nievin
: In article <FREEDOS.94...@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu>,
: fre...@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu (James Hall) writes:
: : I would like to form a group that will, eventually, create another
: : implementation of MS-DOS. DOS appears to be a popular system, and
: : there is plenty of hardware already available that is ready to support
: : it. Microsoft will not develop DOS forever, and one cannot count on
: : commercial programming firms such as IBM or Digital to continue DOS.
: : I feel it is then up to those on the Internet to develop their own DOS
: : (hereafter, Free-DOS) and I feel there is a lot of support for this
: : type of project.
: While I think it is nice to have a freely available DOS, I do not understand
: the motivation behind it as outlined above. Once Microsoft comes up with an
: alternative to DOS, software companies will turn their attention to the new
: OS. As a result, the need for DOS will dwindle and this will also include
: Free-DOS. Five or six years ago, I would not have made this statement but
: it seems rather late in the game at this point.
: Are there any other reasons for Free-DOS other than those suggested above?
: About the only thingI can think of is that it would be more consistent with
: the free software philosophy to boot Free-DOS instead of MS-DOS from Linux
: dosemu.
I think there should be a Free-CP/M to round out the bunch. And
probably a FREE-OS/360 as well.
: [Please note, I am not a Microsoft advocate--- I run Linux on my system.]
Me too... Linux, the choice of a GNU generation!
--
Garrett P. Nievin
#include <witty_tagline.h>
#include <snazzy_signature.h>
#include <obsequious_disclaimer.h>
All opinions stated here are probably not shared by anyone, least of all
my employer.
James Hall
1. Yes, there are many people out there who cannot upgrade their
systems to run the latest versions of MS-DOS, PC-DOS, WIndows, NT,
OS/2, or whatever. Free-DOS is important to these people because it
offers a reasonable alternative that is _well_ within their price
range.
2. I have used a lot of different DOS systems out there as part of
internships and whatnot. (I'll include NT's DOS "window" as part of
this). The MS-DOS command line syntax is very clumsy and (in many
cases) inefficient for me to use. Ever have a list of directories
you'd like to create, and couldn't just say: "MKDIR D1 D2 D3 D4.."?
No, you have to create each one using a separate command. Eek!
This is why part of the Free-DOS goal is to _improve_ the DOS commands
and utilities. When I was working at _____________ during my
internship this summer, I was often heard crying "_This_ is why I'm
writing the new DOS!!"
3. After more people started contributing to Free-DOS, I realized
another benefit that many people don't immediately see. For teh most
part, _students_ are writing Free-DOS. By taking part in a large
project like this, which stresses organization, communication, and
management at all levels, these students are gaining _experience_ that
they can bring with them to job interviews. Pretty cool.
Later!
--Jim Hall
iv...@cc.usu.edu
> I think there should be a Free-CP/M to round out the bunch. And
> probably a FREE-OS/360 as well.
There are a couple of free CP/Ms. Poke around oak.oakland.edu's CP/M archive
and look for SUPRBDOS.LBR, for one. Combined with ZCPR to replace the
CCP and your custom BIOS, you've got a free CP/M.
Adrian Ruzsicska
>D. 'Shag' Birchall (sh...@ios.com) wrote:
>
>MS has also abandoned its DOS programming tools but fortunately there are
>still companies putting out new tools for this environment. PowerBASIC is
>continuing support for those QuickBasic programmers for example. Borland's
>latest C/C++ setup also includes DOS options.
MS Visual C++ has the ability to produce many different executables, including
normal dos .exe and .com files. Additionally with the advent of Version 2,
it provides cross-platform development capabilities.
Frequently application development occurs in environments other than the
final target. This is a good thing, as many default environments are not
conducive to good application development. If you are able to cross platform
develop in one environment, net productivity will increase.
I am not a great fan of MS-Windows performance, but when it comes to
programming, the environment itself for me is leaps and bounds ahead
of a standard dos environment.
Adrian Ruzsicska
r...@it.ntu.edu.au
Ian Staples
>Here are a few other reasons why I feel a Free-DOS project is important:--
>1. Yes, there are many people out there who cannot upgrade their
>systems to run the latest versions of MS-DOS, PC-DOS, WIndows, NT,
>OS/2, or whatever. Free-DOS is important to these people because it
>offers a reasonable alternative that is _well_ within their price range.
Will Free-DOS really be better than the DOS they have, but can't upgrade?
>cases) inefficient for me to use. Ever have a list of directories
>you'd like to create, and couldn't just say: "MKDIR D1 D2 D3 D4.."?
>No, you have to create each one using a separate command. Eek!
Not really:
C:\MYDIRS>FOR %a in (A B C D E F [ETC.] ) DO MKDIR %a
works for most sorts of commands. There do seem to be problems in
cases involving redirection [e.g. to create a set of zero length files
using REM ] which I've only been able to solve using the FOR ... DO to
call an ad hoc batch file: ... DO CALL do_it %a
>3. After more people started contributing to Free-DOS, I realized
>another benefit that many people don't immediately see. For teh most
>part, _students_ are writing Free-DOS. By taking part in a large
>project like this, which stresses organization, communication, and
>management at all levels, these students are gaining _experience_ that
>they can bring with them to job interviews. Pretty cool.
Now *there's* a good rationale for the project. :-)
Cheers & good luck with it,
Geoframe User
: MS Visual C++ has the ability to produce many different executables, including
: normal dos .exe and .com files. Additionally with the advent of Version 2,
: it provides cross-platform development capabilities.
: Frequently application development occurs in environments other than the
: final target. This is a good thing, as many default environments are not
: conducive to good application development. If you are able to cross platform
: develop in one environment, net productivity will increase.
: I am not a great fan of MS-Windows performance, but when it comes to
: programming, the environment itself for me is leaps and bounds ahead
: of a standard dos environment.
Why? I'm really curious. I'm considering jumping ship from Borland since
they no longer offer a DOS programming environment. As I look around
I see, much to my dismay. that no one else does either. What advantages
do you see to Windows as a programming environment? I'm interested in
programming for a DOS target platform.
Aside from performance hits, my principal objection to Windows is the
difficulty of popping in and out of the programming environment. Looking
at files, etc is far easier in DOS, and I haven't convinced myself to like
working in a DOS window.
--
Steve Garcia
gar...@bakersfield.geoquest.slb.com
Glen Blankenship
> [...] The MS-DOS command line syntax is very clumsy and (in many
> cases) inefficient for me to use. Ever have a list of directories
> you'd like to create, and couldn't just say: "MKDIR D1 D2 D3 D4.."?
> No, you have to create each one using a separate command. Eek!
Well, you can't just say "MKDIR D1 D2 D3 D4 D5", but you can say:
for %d in (D1 D2 D3 D4 D5) do md %d
You don't need five separate commands.
---
Glen Blankenship
obo...@netcom.com
g.blan...@genie.geis.com
Paul Brooks
|Here are a few other reasons why I feel a Free-DOS project is important:--
|
|internships and whatnot. (I'll include NT's DOS "window" as part of
|this). The MS-DOS command line syntax is very clumsy and (in many
|cases) inefficient for me to use. Ever have a list of directories
|you'd like to create, and couldn't just say: "MKDIR D1 D2 D3 D4.."?
|No, you have to create each one using a separate command. Eek!
Haven't you guys heard of 4DOS? Its been done already...
--
Paul Brooks |pa...@abccomp.oz.au |Emerging Standard:
TurboSoft Pty Ltd |p...@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au| one that has not yet
579 Harris St., Ultimo | | been superseded.
Sydney Australia 2007 |ph: +61 2 281 3155 |
Matt Butler
a multi-tasking command line OS like Linux on my PC's, but I just can't
get into the idea of running all my apps under emulation. I know there
are apps for Linux and more being produced everyday... so I tell ya, if a
better DOS isn't forthcoming, I may have to go that route.
Anyway if somebody is already working on this, drop me a line, I
would like to help.
Late-
Butler
but...@netcom.com
James Hall
here because of the distribution.
--cut here--
>I'm all for a free DOS. I would love to have (among other things)
>a multi-tasking command line OS like Linux on my PC's, but I just can't
>get into the idea of running all my apps under emulation. I know there
>are apps for Linux and more being produced everyday... so I tell ya, if a
>better DOS isn't forthcoming, I may have to go that route.
I won't make any comments on Linux here, but it is a nice OS.
>Anyway if somebody is already working on this, drop me a line, I
>would like to help.
Yup, I'm the Free-DOS maintainer. I suppose I'm the best person to
talk to about this.
We've covered a lot of ground in a short period of time with Free-DOS.
And it's nice to see that we've used good software engineering
practices, so it's easily modified.
Pat Villani's DOS/NT kernel seems very well done. A lot of people are
happy with it, though Pat still needs to make some fixes. He is doing
this, and 1.03 is due out soon!@!
I welcome email from anyone interested in helping outwith Free-DOS.
you can just email me here at fre...@sunsite.unc.edu
Later!
--Jim Hall