Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

FreeDOS 1.0 Released

Posted by kdawson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 06:05 PM
from the begun-before-you-were-born dept.
Noksagt writes, "FreeDOS 1.0 has been released only a little bit later than planned. The 1.0 milestone is considered to be 'a stable and viable MS-DOS replacement' and features long filename support, HIMEM and EMM386 management, and CD-ROM support."

Related Stories

[+] FreeDOS Not Dead; 1.0 Release Imminent 196 comments
Lisa writes "Jim Hall, creator of the open source MS-DOS operating system project FreeDOS, says that while work on the project may have slowed recently, he isn't ready to throw in the towel just yet. In fact, Hall says he hopes to see version 1.0 released as soon as the end of the month." (So rumors to the contrary can be safely ignored.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Bootability (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2006, @06:09PM (#16040359)
    How good are the boot disks? I am always running into situations where I need a "DOS" boot disk. Can we put this on a USB key or CD (in addition to the traditional floppy) and get our computers going?
    • Re:Bootability by varunnangia (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @06:16PM
      • USB Bootability (Score:5, Informative)

        by DrYak (748999) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @02:58AM (#16042806)
        (http://www.sympato.ch/)
        USB Key :
        While most old BIOS aren't able to boot from a storage class usb device unlike modern one, there are drivers like DUSE and others [bootdisk.com], that enable the access to USB devices on those oldies.
        So one could make a generic "boots DOS with USB support" bootdisk / bootiso and use it everytime you have to flash some BIOS / Firmware and want to save the new ROM on a USB stick. (The combination "USB BootISO + ROM on a stick" come VERY handy when flashing floppy-less boxes).

        Front-ends :
        A open variant of GEM (huh... Seals ?) is included in the "larger" distribution of FreeDOS.
        Also, for those who need a small box just to surf the web, no need for a full graphical environnement, there stuff like Arachne [cisnet.com] (full graphical browser, GPL. Description at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]).
        Great for a surfbox, and the old 386 on which you'll run it doesn't draw as much power as a Pentium 4.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Bootability by fo0bar (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @11:13PM
      • Re:Bootability by valshaq (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @03:02AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • hooray! (Score:5, Funny)

    ~writes new MS-DOS compatible apps~
    • Re:hooray! by M1FCJ (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:25AM
      • Re:hooray! by GreyPoopon (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:07PM
    • Re:hooray! by jlebrech (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @02:04AM
      • Re:hooray! by johansalk (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @04:49PM
    • Re:hooray! by moochfish (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @03:12AM
    • Re:hooray! by ObsessiveMathsFreak (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @03:45AM
  • Installer needs work... (Score:4, Informative)

    by varunnangia (999363) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:09PM (#16040363)
    (http://www.varunnangia.com/)
    I downloaded the full version, instead of the base, but it requires constant attention and keypresses to get through the installer. It does ship with a number of really useful utilities, though, and it does run Worms beautifully, even under Vista* :) *Note: Virtual PC breaks Aero :(
    • Re:Installer needs work... by ImTheDarkcyde (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @06:39PM
    • Re:Installer needs work... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @07:46AM (#16043724)
      (http://slashdot.org/)
      *Note: Virtual PC breaks Aero :(

      Note: Virtual PC does not "break" Aero. Windows Vista is explicitly designed to PROHIBIT Aero and serveral other parts of the operating system from operating if you attempt to use unapproved unsigned drivers or attempt to use any sort of debugger or attempt to use any sort of virtualisation mechanism or attempt to exert control over your computer in any way whatsoever.

      Why?

      Because if you were allowed to do any of that then you might be able to get around or modify the DRM schemes woven throughout the Aero desktop and other areas of your computer.

      So it's not so much a problem with Virtual PC breaking Aero as it is a deliberate effort by Microsoft to sabotage Windows and deliberately selfdestruct Aero, and other Windows systems, against Virtual PC and against any other similar software.

      -
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Installer needs work... by LatePaul (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @03:35AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Monday September 04 2006, @06:11PM (#16040375)
    (Last Journal: Sunday January 21 2007, @01:58AM)
    I'm all for MS-Anything replacements ... but I don't understand what this means.

    Can someone take a shell box, use this as a root OS, drop an equally front end on top of it, and come up with a Non-Linux OS variant?

      If you have a linux box already, do you run this like a Free-Dos-in-the-box, to fudge portability for MS software?

    It's brilliant. I'm not. Someone help me out.
  • 'cause it's not cool unless it's tomorrow's technology today or 25 year old technology today.
  • FreeWindows 3.11 (Score:5, Funny)

    by linguae (763922) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:13PM (#16040387)

    This is exciting that we have a FOSS and functional equivalent of MS-DOS 6.22 (with some other features like long file names). I can run my old DOS games on my Mac with QEMU. Now, I wonder when somebody will get started on FreeWindows 3.11?

  • Dos 1.0?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by scenestar (828656) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:13PM (#16040390)
    (http://easyvpshost.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 26 2005, @06:58PM)
    And I Thought debian's release cycle was slow.
  • Why no link to the site? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:16PM (#16040407)
    (http://www.geocities.com/theLICC)
    The submitter didn't even bother putting a link to freedos.org [freedos.org] into the submission!
  • RE: =) ! (Score:1)

    by c0d3r (156687) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:17PM (#16040414)
    (http://www.wanfear.com/~mbrito)
    =)!
    C:\>debug
    -e b800:0 1 1 21 7

    • Re: =) ! by stevenp (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @06:29PM
      • Re:oh yeah?? by shani (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @05:15AM
        • Re:oh yeah?? by Cat_Byte (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:09AM
          • Re:oh yeah?? by c0d3r (Score:1) Friday September 08 2006, @02:46AM
        • Re:oh yeah?? by c0d3r (Score:1) Friday September 08 2006, @02:50AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Nostalgia (Score:5, Informative)

      I actually know how to break that down... B800:0000 is the start of the ASCII video memory. First 0x1 is the smiley, next 0x1 is dark blue on black. 0x21 is !, 0x7 is light gray on black.

      The memory is 4000 bytes long (longer if you use a bigger mode than 80x25) with 2 bytes for a screen tile. First byte specifies extended ASCII character (charmap.exe with font Terminal will show you all characters > 0x20), second specifies the color.

      All colors that can be used are: 0 = black, 1 = dark blue, 2 = dark green, 3 = dark cyan, 4 = dark red, 5 = dark purple, 6 = brown, 7 = light gray, 8 = dark gray, 9 = light blue, A = light green, B = light cyan, C = light red, D = light purple, E = yellow, F = white. Note that the first nibble is the background color, second is foreground. By default, if you specify a background >= 8, subtract 8 to get the displayed background. The foreground will blink. Not sure what mechanism overrides this to allow "light" backgrounds, but I've seen it done.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Nostalgia by Reziac (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @11:48PM
        • Re:Nostalgia by An ominous Cow art (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:51AM
          • Re:Nostalgia by Reziac (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @06:08PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re: =) ! by An ominous Cow art (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:49AM
    • Re: =) ! by c0d3r (Score:1) Friday September 08 2006, @02:57AM
    • Re: =) ! by c0d3r (Score:1) Friday September 08 2006, @02:54AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by Danga (307709) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:29PM (#16040464)
    While this is a cool accomplishment does it serve any real useful purpose? I have had no need for MS-DOS since Windows XP came out since you can create a DOS boot disk easily if you need to and all of my old games that I still like to play every once in a while and old apps run file using the XP compatibility mode. Since I have upgraded to XP I use XP on my machines that I just want to use to play games/web browse/code Windows Apps and Linux on servers and machines I want to code Linux apps on. No MS-DOS needed. If I really wanted to load MS-DOS on a machine and couldn't find my old installer disks then I noticed sealed, brand new copies of version 6.22 can still be bought on eBay like the following: http://cgi.ebay.com/Windows-MS-DOS-6-22-Operating- System-W-Sealed-Floppies_W0QQitemZ260027371141QQih Z016QQcategoryZ11685QQtcZphotoQQssPageNameZWDVWQQr dZ1QQcmdZViewItem [ebay.com]

    So, while I find the freeDOS project cool in a nerdy sort of way I do not see how the amount of effort that went into it was worth the actual usefullness of the project.
  • I'd like to see more focus... (Score:3, Informative)

    by erroneus (253617) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:30PM (#16040469)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    ...maybe I haven't been looking in the right places or for the right things, but there are two things I need DOS for:

    1. A means to boot a machine, load network drivers, protocol stacks and maps drives so I can run Ghost.
    2. Other things like updating BIOSes

    #1 is at the top of my list, obviously. Boot disks are pretty important. Bootable USB thumb drives and bootable CDROMs are good too. Need'm all. Seems like everywhere I look, things still seem to favor the Win98 DOS... it's annoying because I don't want to use those. For lack of a better term, I'd like to see more "marketting" focus on creating boot disk packages that people can use. Make'm as free as BSD so hardware makers can use them without worry. Philosophy be damned if all it does is make people nervous and hire lawyers, or worse, not use what is available because they simply don't understand it and can't afford a lawyer.

    So if it were more available and better packaged, I think we'd get more than better acceptance of it, we'd get something of a clammoring for it.
  • I like FreeDOS. (Score:1)

    by Simon Simian (694897) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:37PM (#16040495)
    I had to use FreeDOS for something a few years ago, but I can't for the life of me remember why. I remember running it in QEMU, I remember being simultaneously impressed with QEMU and FreeDOS, but I can't remember what I was actually doing.

    Anywho, I know it must be good software because I'm not easily impressed.

    Wow! A blue^H^H^H^H^H^H kill me.
  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:38PM (#16040501)
    (http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
    Finally! Now I can run loadlin on a completely free OS!
  • Old Dos Music Apps Can't Be Beat (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jack Action (761544) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:40PM (#16040508)
    (http://www.spectralhorse.com/)

    The Linux Dos emulator Dosemu [dosemu.org], uses FreeDos. Dosemu is extremely easy to install and use, and once you do, you have access to all the old Dos music applications that have now been released for free.

    These include Sequencer Gold Plus [voyetra.com], and, if you don't like the tracker interface, the CMU Midi Toolkit [cmu.edu], which allows score info to be entered in a text file.

    A lot of these original Dos programs really haven't been beat, and when combined with Linux and a modern soundcard and midi/soundfont instruments -- you can have a pretty robust home music setup.

    • Re:Old Dos Music Apps Can't Be Beat by fishbowl (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @07:48PM
    • Re:Old Dos Music Apps Can't Be Beat by foreverdisillusioned (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @09:54PM
    • I dunno man (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday September 04 2006, @10:31PM (#16041710)
      I wonder if you've used modern music software. I've been playing with music software since the DOS days and while sure, there are neat programs for DOS, they don't compare to what's available for Windows/Mac today. Have you played with Sonar or the like? It's really just damn slick. I do have fond memories of things like Scream Tracker, and indeed you can get more powerful modern versions in the form of things like ModPlug Tracker. However once you've dealt with a modern sequence with a robust sampler playing samples gigabytes in size, with any kind of effects you can get a plugin for, it's real hard to go back to a text, spreadsheet like interface with tiny samples.

      Now, I'll grant you, you can get the DOS programs for free, professional apps are expensive. However I think it's misleading to say the DOS programs "haven't been beat." I think they have, badly. That's no knock on them, there's only so much you can do when 4MB is a large program and you've maybe half that much RAM. However that's not a problem anymore, and it's nice to see what you can do with a modern system. Sure it's cool to see a MOD player with a robust cubic resampling engine to pitch shift a single note several octaves without distortion. However it's even cooler to have a 5GB sample bank that doesn't NEED pitch shifting, because all the notes have been recorded individually.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:I dunno man by Jack Action (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @11:24PM
        • Re:I dunno man by Sycraft-fu (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @04:28AM
  • nostalgia (Score:2)

    by gsn (989808) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:54PM (#16040585)
    So many things to get from HOTU, so little time...
    no more mounting folders and general dinking around with DOSbox! Only dinking around with the real thing! Ahh the thought that I will soon see beautiful CGA graphics brings a tear to my eye. Alleycat as god intended it... sniff /nostalgia
    • Re:nostalgia by ovapositor (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:36PM
    • Unfortunately by Sycraft-fu (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @10:36PM
  • Good job, guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnappyCrunch (583594) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:54PM (#16040586)
    (http://www.mediachest.com/)
    I'm proud of these guys. Sure, it took 'em ten years, but they've made an OS from scratch that runs applications made for another OS. It's not an easy task. Just ask the GNU guys, or the Linux guys, or the Wine guys, or the ReactOS guys. Even if you don't see the utility of having a DOS clone, there are those who do, and I'll bet they're happy.
  • by Rix (54095) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:56PM (#16040608)
    I've never been able to get that running on a modern machine.
  • 32 bit DOS extender? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2006, @07:01PM (#16040627)
    Does it come with a DOS extender fully compliant with the DPMI and VCPI specs? I think it's worth waiting a few more years for that.
  • So... (Score:1)

    by redkazuo (977330) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:02PM (#16040632)
    if FreeDOS was finally released, does this mean I can hope for DNF this Christmas?
    • Re:So... by dude8151 (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @05:43AM
  • Now that FreeDOS 1.0 is done, they can start building FreeWIN3.11 v0.1 alpha on top of it.
    (Do they already have a FreeDOSShell? If not, they can do that first).

    In 2016, they might be able to start with FreeWIN95.
    2026 FreeWIN98
    2036 FreeWIN98SE
    2046 FreeWINME
    2056 FreeWINXP
    2066 FreeWINVISTA

    Will Microsoft or FreeDOS be first with the Vista editions? ;)
  • by btk667 (722104) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:10PM (#16040666)
    This may seems like an odd question but, what is happening with the FAT legal battle?
    Who own FAT now? FREEDOS can use it ?

    M$ is allowing this OS to exist? I know DOS is very own, and cannot be bought theses days but still Microsoft is leaving this "great" software freely available to the public?

  • by elgee (308600) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:12PM (#16040670)
    Twice in the last month, I had to boot from a XP CD and get into the recovery console and use, gasp, DOS to fix some disk and boot sector problems. Until something else comes along, such primitive stuff still works at the lowest level.
  • FreeDOS... (Score:1)

    by Shadyman (939863) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:38PM (#16040804)
    (http://erroraccessdenied.com/)
    ... but does it run Linux?
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by mccalli (323026) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:39PM (#16040810)
    (http://www.eruvia.org/)
    This is a depressing thread to read - there seems to be a clear majority that think just because it's not immediately useful to them, it must be a waste of time and pointless.

    Until recently, I was a FreeDOS user. I used it on a P100 laptop to connect to my Commodore 64 (the version of the connector cable I have requires a single-tasking OS). Is that a mainstream use? No, not by a long chalk. Is it a useful use? Well yeah, to me it definitely was. The C64 is turned on once in a blue moon to play the odd game or two, and the P100 (saved from a bin) let me transfer disk images off the net directly onto a 1541 floppy disk.

    So that's one oddball use. Next up, two more mainstream uses. BIOS flash utilities? I'm on the Mac now, but I remember the majority of BIOS flashes being either required or recommended to be run from DOS. Then from reading some of the more useful posts to this thread I also learn it's in use within the embedded world. So that's two fairly mainstream activities where this helps.

    And the final reason? Well....it's obvious. Just 'cos. That's a good and valid reason in itself, and the lack of appreciation for that thought within this thread is what's disappointing me. Just because someone hasn't spoon-fed you something shiny, it doesn't mean that the entire world disregards it. My congratulations to FreeDOS and the the positive posters, and once again - yaah boo sucks to the negative ones.

    Cheers,
    Ian
  • by ray-auch (454705) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:47PM (#16040849)
    After this:


    I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
    a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
    get a high grade for such a design :-)


    what grade would you get for rewriting DOS 15 yrs later, and would it be higher or lower than the Hurd guys get for taking 20+yrs to get to 0.2 (but doing it the "right" way, with a microkernel) ?

    "5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU" - Andy Tanenbaum, 1992
  • But... (Score:2)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:02PM (#16040935)
    (http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
    will it run Duke Nuke 'em Forever?
  • by rsayers (987262) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:14PM (#16040992)
    I work in a casino, all slow machines run dos. I know there are still a lot of "embeded" uses still out there.
  • Related stuff (Score:1)

    by sankyuu (847178) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:15PM (#16040998)
    (Last Journal: Monday November 06 2006, @09:08PM)
    I haven't tried freedos in a while, but I tried dosbox [sourceforge.net] and it worked well with commander keen [3drealms.com] on winxpsp2 =)

    (I am not affiliated with any of the software listed above)
  • Serious question: (Score:2)

    by mblase (200735) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:26PM (#16041041)
    Does it support Intel Macs? I can't find them mentioned on the project pages.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Screenshots (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bobby Cannon (926456) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:30PM (#16041066)
    (http://www.sharpdeck.net/)
    Where's the screenshots?
    • Re:Screenshots by Espectr0 (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @08:52PM
      • Re:Screenshots by kusanagi374 (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:21PM
        • Re:Screenshots by Prof.Phreak (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:55PM
          • Re:Screenshots by Brandybuck (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:58AM
            • Re:Screenshots by Prof.Phreak (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:22AM
              • Re:Screenshots by the_greywolf (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:47PM
    • Re:Screenshots by TheoMurpse (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:27AM
    • Re:Screenshots by HatofPig (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @05:03AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by 78 105 107 (909001) <ssnik992@@@gmail...com> on Monday September 04 2006, @09:00PM (#16041220)
    I'm not sure if this is possible, but, does anyone think it would be possible to port WINE to FreeDOS? What I thought might work would be heavily modifying OpenGEM or taking code from ReactOS to make a windowing system. Any other thoughts on this?
  • Flashback (Score:2)

    by misleb (129952) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:16PM (#16041303)
    Whoa. That was quite the flashback.

    "Now with EMM386!"

    Umm, yay?

  • AM-100 Datalogger (Score:4, Informative)

    by frogstar_robot (926792) <frogstar_robot@yahoo.com> on Monday September 04 2006, @09:19PM (#16041315)
    The AM-100 is a datalogger used to collect data from photovoltaic panel fed inverters. It is no longer manufactured and the only software available to collect data from the logger runs in DOS. I run FreeDOS on top of DOSemu in Linux to collect this data. When running under Win98, the logger software would not be stable for more than three days at a time. It was no more stable under DOSemu but I used a cron job to kill and restart the software at midnight (no sunlight so it wasn't collecting data anyway...). Other scripts scrape the CSV files the logger software produces to make graphs. I futhermore run the DOSemu session under GNU screen. This allows me to view the logger software remotely w/ssh. FreeDOS in combination with other tools allowed me to usefully extend the capabilities of a no longer manufactured hardware/software product.
  • by weasel5i2 (994250) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:28PM (#16041381)
    (http://www.weasel.net/)
    I realize this totally misses the point of TFA, but..

    Just go to http://www.bootdisk.com/ [bootdisk.com] and download one of many different illicit/fuzzy/licit DOS bootable images, among others. These guys have been around for some time.. ^_^

    --Weasel
  • by cjsm (804001) on Monday September 04 2006, @10:04PM (#16041579)
    I'm been wanting to get rid of them somehow. I need to start getting rid of books I never use.
  • At last! (Score:1)

    by keeboo (724305) on Monday September 04 2006, @10:58PM (#16041854)
    Now I can finally dump that trashy Linux and KDE, and enjoy a full computing experience with my dual core-powered machine!
  • Yawwwn (Score:1)

    by whichpaul (733708) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:07AM (#16042180)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:53PM)
    Why? Why? Microsoft must be shaking in their boots. What's next: OpenPunchCard 1.0?!
  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:15AM (#16042212)
    (Last Journal: Monday January 06 2003, @10:36PM)
    I guess not but I'll ask anyway...
  • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:48AM (#16042565)
    I have read countless comments asking basically the same question, "WHY?". I have the answer. M.A.M.E. I can now build and sell an arcade console complete with FreeDOS and M.A.M.E. installed and any home brew games available. Slap one of the nicer front-ends on it and market it without fear of legal entanglements. What you do with the box once you have it is none of my business. I know you can get boxes like that now but I think a FreeDOS / M.A.M.E. / Some form of Front-end preinstalled would be a nice package for the non-enthusiast.
  • IBM PC (Score:1)

    by ch0knuti (994541) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @04:55AM (#16043153)
    FreeDOS is a free DOS-compatible operating system for IBM-PC compatible systems
    Man now that brings back memories. When was the last time anybody used that term?
    • Re:IBM PC by An ominous Cow art (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:58AM
  • Microsoft makes Word 5.5 for DOS available as free-beer software.

    They had to fix a year 2000 bug and decided to give the software away rather than trying to sell it.

    Word for DOS 5.0 was a really nice piece of work, although in my opinion the interface had started to go downhill by 5.5 (trying to copy the Windows interface too much).

    Details here: http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/11/25/free-file/ [downloadsquad.com]
  • I would have thought Uno would be more appropriate.
  • torrent file? (Score:2)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 05 2006, @10:56AM (#16045113)
    (http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
    could anybody seed up a torrent? the download speeds are tragic.
  • by DirtyFly (765689) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:47AM (#16045598)
    Lets wait for M$ to release a new version of WFW that hangs on FreeDOS Jorge
  • 16 megs max (Score:1)

    by extract (889530) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:56AM (#16045696)
    I wonder if FreeDOS 1.0 has a hard 16 MB RAM upper limit! If so, nobody will be able to accuse FreeDOS of being a memory hog!
  • now that i've (Score:2)

    by Bassman59 (519820) <<andy> <at> <latke.net>> on Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:22PM (#16046385)
    (http://www.latke.net/)
    finally repurposed those brain cells that I was using to store the arcane knowledge of autoexec.bat and config.sys!
  • Mmmm... (Score:1)

    by dafragsta (577711) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @05:36PM (#16048310)
    FreeDOS Chili Pie.
  • Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)

    by kimvette (919543) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:11PM (#16040372)
    (http://kim.biyn.com/)
    Not when motherboard manufacturers still ship BIOS updaters which require MS-DOS. Considering that you can't even BUY MS-DOS any more, and the images are likely leaving MSDN and Server disks soon, a legal alternative to DOS is still a necessity.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)

      by nxtw (866177) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:13PM (#16040386)
      XP has the ability to create MS-DOS startup disks which can be used to flash the BIOS. I assume Vista will also have this functionality.

      Some BIOSes are include builtin flashing utilities that do not require one to boot into DOS.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Moo by kimvette (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @06:17PM
        • Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)

          by CODiNE (27417) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:30PM (#16040467)
          (http://slashdot.org/)
          Why are you worried about a legal DOS when you're running OS X on non-Apple hardware? Well hey if that helps you sleep at night.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Moo by dadragon (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @06:32PM
            • Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)

              by 3dr (169908) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:55PM (#16040595)
              He did also mention BSD and Linux. Those are perfectly legal to use on any PC.

              Not when my questionably elected, somewhat appointed, congressional representatives get done with them!

              [ Parent ]
          • Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @06:36PM
            • Re:Moo by Millenniumman (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @06:49PM
              • Re:Moo by kimvette (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @07:12PM
                • Re:Moo by Millenniumman (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @10:21PM
                • Re:Moo by swillden (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:06AM
              • Re:Moo by Millenniumman (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @10:30PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)

          I agree it's a bit of a PITA but there's a zillion free downloads that include one version of DOS or another. I've had great luck with the extremely roundabout method:

          1. Download bootable CD image or a DOS floppy image. If the latter, skip next step.
          2. Use IsoBuster (or similar) to strip the CD image out. I think Nero CD even has a tool to do this. I'm quite sure there's freeware tools to do it.
          3. Mount the resulting floppy image as a filesystem. On Windows, I use vmware and do this in a virtual machine, typ. running Windows 98. Linux users with the msdos filesystem compiled in can simply mount it; mount -o loop,rw imagefile mountpoint IIRC.
          4. Remove whatever files you don't want from the floppy, and lay down your own.

          Now, on one hand this is probably illegal by the terms of the EULA, which probably says you can use this copy of DOS only to run whatever utility. (Seagate, for example, will provide you with DOS on a floppy or CD image, in order to deliver unto you the hard disk utility they licensed. It's a very nice one actually.) On the other hand, who gives a shit? The only thing wrong with this method is that it's beyond many people.

          The real solution is that all BIOS manufacturers need to implement loading BIOS flash files from, at the very minimum, floppy, ISO CDROM, or MS-DOS format USB device, partition 1. This would eliminate this whole thing. I guess if it came down to it they could always just let you do that by putting FreeDOS into BIOS :)

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Moo by SanityInAnarchy (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:33AM
            • Re:Moo by drinkypoo (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @10:46AM
          • Or they could do the Dell thing... by Ayanami Rei (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:48AM
        • Re:Moo by anagama (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @08:23PM
          • Re:Moo by npsimons (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:59AM
        • Re:Moo by evilviper (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:04AM
          • Re:Moo by HeroreV (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @02:19AM
            • Re:Moo by evilviper (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @02:27PM
        • Re:Moo by devilspgd (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @06:54PM
      • Re:Moo by xjerky (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @06:37PM
        • Re:Moo by MrHanky (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:06PM
          • Re:Moo by xjerky (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:26PM
      • Re:Moo by Mryll (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @07:36PM
    • windows flash utils by _Shorty-dammit (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @06:42PM
  • Necromancy (Score:5, Funny)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:28PM (#16040458)
    I'm not that skilled in necromancy, but as far as I can tell, in any system Animate Dead spells work only before the corpse rots away. And in the case of DOS, indeed, they're a tiny bit too late.

    I guess it's rather the time for exorcisms now.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Necromancy (Score:5, Informative)

      by Drishmung (458368) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:47PM (#16040541)
      Nope, from the d20 SRD---Spells (A) [opengamingfoundation.org]
      This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow the character's spoken commands.
      ...
      Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.
      . All you need is the skeleton. Looks like there's hope for DOS yet then.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Necromancy by Opportunist (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:28PM
      • Re:Necromancy by MyLongNickName (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @08:00PM
      • Re:Necromancy by Takumi2501 (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @10:34PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abradsn (542213) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:32PM (#16040474)
    (http://www.piratetoystore.com/)
    Dude, it was just released. Give it a chance to be used, before you complain that no-one uses it.
    Someone put a tonne of effort into it, and you should have some respect for that at the very least.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Abcd1234 (188840) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:32PM (#16040480)
    (http://del.icio.us/Abcd1234/)
    Well, it's pretty handy when used in combination with dosemu, as it allows distros to ship a fully functioning DOS box on Linux without requiring non-free software.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Moo (Score:3)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:36PM (#16040491)
    (http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
    Although a fully-functional free MS-DOS clone isn't nearly as useful as it would have been 10 or more years ago, there are still uses for DOS today. For example, Symantec licenses PC-DOS from IBM for Ghost to make boot disks with. The one successful commercial clone of MS-DOS (DR-DOS), has apparently found a niche market as a mature, well-documented OS for embedded systems (not phones, obviously). Imagine putting FreeDOS in ROM on a motherboard as a last-resort boot device, along with some diagnostic tools. To say nothing of giving you the ability to run the best word processor ever written (WordPerfect 5.1) on cast-off hardware. :)
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Moo by Chacham (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @08:04PM
    • Re:Moo by Reaperducer (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @08:46PM
    • Re:Moo by Watson Ladd (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:31PM
    • Re:Moo by Reziac (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @11:27PM
  • Re:Stable? (Score:2)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:46PM (#16040540)
    (http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
    Its been stable for years. It just didnt have the 1.0 version mark for people to notice it.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:5, Informative)

    I liked DOS as much as anybody, but FreeDOS is perhaps 5 years too late for anyone to care.

    I wish I knew how you people find moderators dumb enough to mod this kind of crap up.

    DOS is still heavily used in industrial control, with new programs being written for it every day. In fact, literally tens of thousands of computer-driven machining tools are running DOS right now as they run through their paces. DOS is literally the most popular OS in this space.

    If people want to keep using those machines, and they're smart, they'll back up the programs right now, and burn them to a CD with a copy of FreeDOS. Someday they won't be able to find hardware their original DOS runs on. Of course, a lot of them just load from floppy, so all THOSE people need is a floppy image; they can burn it to a CD and boot from that someday when they can't find a 386 or a 1.44MB floppy drive for less than a hoijllion dollars.

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not exciting... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @07:20PM
    • Re:Not exciting... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:47PM (#16040846)
      Couldn't agree more, probably because I've spent about twenty-odd years in industrial control. The embedded world runs a Texas shitload of DOS, and the arrogance of people that assume that if it doesn't run from a hard disk and have a GUI it's obsolete just astounds me. FreeDOS claims that it can be ROMmed ... if so, it's a viable replacement for a lot of expensive industrial DOS clones out there (datalight and others.) People just don't realize the sheer number of embedded systems that support their lifestyles, they really don't.

      Forgetting the embedded space for a moment, I downloaded FreeDOS 1.0 yesterday just for the heck of it, and installed it on an old P166 laptop I had lying around. I dumped a bunch of MP3 files onto it, and immediately began playing them with the included MPXPlay package. It took a while to get TCP/IP working on a 3COM 3C575 Cardbus adapter, but once that was done I had a nice DOS system with browsing, email, and a ton of other stuff.

      As a matter of fact, FreeDOS is organized much like a typical Linux distro (even uses some of the standard DOS disk tools that come with most Linuxes) and includes a lot of applications if you get the full download. Memory management is very good: right out of the box it got more conventional RAM than I ever got with QEMM in years past. Some of the utilities are still a bit lacking in support for FAT32 and LFN, but overall a very useful package. Jim Hall and other contributors to the project are to be commended for their efforts.

      DOS is as obsolete as the internal combustion engine.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not exciting... by Reaperducer (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:47PM
    • Re:Not exciting... by evilviper (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @11:03PM
    • Re:Not exciting... by simontek2 (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:51AM
    • Re:Not exciting... by clickclickdrone (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:18AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Moo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dun Malg (230075) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:53PM (#16040576)
    (https://addons.mozil...&application=firefox)
    Umm, aren't they a little late on this one?
    You'd be surprised (or perhaps dismayed) to know how many old crawling horror DOS applications there are out there in use. My boss uses this abomination of a program for creating master key systems that was written in Turbo Pascal back in the 80's. He recently paid $60 for the newest "upgrade" (last year!), but the thing is still written in TP, and still cannot be made to print to anything other than LPT1. I wrote a look-alike, work-alike windows app in two weeks (using Borland C++ Builder) that worked with his USB printer and could even import the data files from the old shitty program-- but he "couldn't figure out how to work it" so he continues to use that DOS-based crap. There are lots of people like that, some stuck with legacy software that can't realistically be brought into the 21st century, some just dumbfucks like my boss.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Moo by ZiakII (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:06PM
      • Re:Moo by Dun Malg (Score:3) Monday September 04 2006, @07:54PM
        • Re:Moo by zerocool^ (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:30PM
    • Re:Moo by Dun Malg (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @07:07PM
      • Re:Moo by SanityInAnarchy (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:20AM
    • Re:Moo by fishbowl (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @07:44PM
      • Re:Moo by Dun Malg (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @08:16PM
        • Re:Moo by Stormwatch (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @10:03PM
          • Re:Moo by fishbowl (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @10:54PM
        • Re:Moo by shaitand (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @04:29AM
    • Re:Moo by OrangeTide (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:47PM
    • Re:Moo by cjsm (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @09:57PM
      • Re:Moo by lantenon (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:11AM
    • Re:Moo by Ch_Omega (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @10:01PM
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:2)

    by fm6 (162816) on Monday September 04 2006, @06:55PM (#16040594)
    (http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 29 2006, @03:58PM)
    You're obviously not into retro games. When I want to play Sword of the Samurai [links.net], I run it on top of FreeDOS, which runs on top of http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php>DOSBo x [sourceforge.net], which runs under Windows XP. Or I could just boot up FreeDOS, but that requires that I shut down XP, which is a nuisance.

    There's also a lot of people who write embedded applications in DOS or DOS-like OSs. Having an open source alternative to aging, poorly supported closed-source OSs is good news to them.

    [ Parent ]
  • O.K., clown, how long from Unix to Linux? Now, go sit down.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Why? (Score:2)

    by spauldo (118058) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:12PM (#16040671)
    You can use it in emulators and use it for an operating system if you're selling a bare PC.

    It's nice for legacy stuff - I had a client once that ran a QBASIC application and we had to set up a couple more machines for him. FreeDOS was nice and legal, since I had no idea how to buy a license for MS-DOS. It's not like you can walk down to the store and buy DOS these days.

    I have an unopened copy of DOS 6.22 around here somewhere, but it's buried in a box, most likely. Probably next to my 70 NT4 Workstation licenses.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:1)

    by Kasar (838340) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:12PM (#16040673)
    POS systems all over are still using it. The office machines used to administer the old software's usually running windows and the POS software in a DOS box though, so even if FreeDOS was used for the sales floor machines, it'd be of limited use to the office where they need MS Office-type applications and other things currently not available for DOS.

    Not that it can't be used, but I think the world's pretty much moved to GUI and won't be going back. I just don't see a killer app coming for a new DOS.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Alleycat (Score:1)

    by ParallelJoe (624814) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:17PM (#16040694)
    I'm not sure about Alleycat but a few years ago I set up an old P133 with FreeDOS, a simple menu system and a bunch of old games including: PacMan, Duke Nukem 2 AND Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D, Tomb Raider, etc. plus some old astronomy programs. There are zillions of DOS programs out there. My kids, big time gamers, still boot it up every now and then for a little old school action.

    FreeDOS was a solid program even then.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Just say No! (Score:2)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:30PM (#16040753)
    Hey, it's beer... I mean, free. Can't be from MS, right?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Alleycat (Score:2)

    by labratuk (204918) on Monday September 04 2006, @07:36PM (#16040788)
    I loved that game. Along with sopwith. But it's one of those things that I thought was incredibly obscure and nobody else played. I know better these days.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham (981) * on Monday September 04 2006, @08:06PM (#16040948)
    (http://tkatch.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @02:09PM)
    Umm, aren't they a little late on this one?

    Hmm.. next, i'm sure, comes FreeDows, but that name would just be too corny.
    [ Parent ]
    • You mean ReactOS by tepples (Score:2) Monday September 04 2006, @09:04PM
    • Re:Moo by PJOttawa (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:50AM
  • Re:Feature (Score:1)

    by Scarletdown (886459) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:08PM (#16040959)
    I don't know if this is a false memory or not, due to age. But I do seem to recall a few years ago when I was checking out FreeDOS, I was able to get CD-ROM drivers to load just fine using stuff like oakcdrom.sys, the drivers for the old CR-563 series drives, etc., combined with a copy of mscdex.exe yoinked from a MS-DOS boot disk. So, CD-ROM support in FreeDOS doesn't seem like all that big a deal to me. Now, if there was DVD-RW, and CD-RW support, that would be another story.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Moo (Score:2)

    by solitas (916005) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:20PM (#16041015)
    You'd be surprised how many DOS boxes and controllers are still out there running custom .EXE's for data acquisition and control and stuff (hooray for QuickBasic 4.5!)... I've got three of them under my responsibility - they've been in-place for yearsandyears and are still doing their jobs without so much as a hiccup.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Why? (Score:2)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:02PM (#16041234)
    Because you can't buy MS-DOS even if you wanted to. Besides, FreeDOS offers a lot more capabilities than MS-DOS 7.x ever had. 7.x was the final release of MS-DOS, and it was never sold as a standalone product, only as part of Windows 9x.

    And if DOS is important to you (as it is to many, many people and companies) and completely open-source GPL'ed version that is beyond Microsoft's reach is certainly a good thing.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why? by KC1P (Score:1) Monday September 04 2006, @09:23PM
      • Re:Why? by ScrewMaster (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:12PM
      • Re:Why? by ScrewMaster (Score:2) Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:16PM
        • Re:Why? by KC1P (Score:1) Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:04PM
  • by dosius (230542) <lyricalnanoha@dosius.ath.cx> on Monday September 04 2006, @09:41PM (#16041454)
    (Last Journal: Saturday February 19 2005, @08:28AM)
    Why not? [delorie.com] But you'll need a 386 for that, and a copy of CWSDPMI [delorie.com].

    -uso.
    [ Parent ]
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:44PM (#16041464)
    FreeDOS has a feature Linux lacks, DRIVE LETTERS!!
    [ Parent ]
  • by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:50PM (#16041497)
    (Last Journal: Thursday August 23, @11:40AM)
    DOS is still used a lot. E.g.: the operating system in my Canon PowerShot camera is a DOS-clone (yes: the processor is 8086-compatible).
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Not exciting... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by weasel5i2 (994250) on Monday September 04 2006, @10:01PM (#16041561)
    (http://www.weasel.net/)
    evilviper said: "FreeDOS has really poor compatibility with everything I try. Try to run some MS-DOS program, and it aborts before showing anything, or perhaps acts in very weird ways, sometimes doing real damage."

    Perhaps?? What, you're not sure how it's acting? Sometimes doing real damage..??? What?! Like how, causing your hard disk to burst into flames? Causing your monitor's side paneling to melt off? Please, be specific about how FreeDOS "perhaps, does real damage" to your computer! It is extremely hard to do any "real" damage to a computer through software means. The worst-case scenario is BIOS-failure-based bricking of your box, and if FreeDOS is capable or likely to do that, I would be very afraid, but this is simply not the case.

    It generally takes a very specific and directed effort to cause "real damage" to a PC. It's well known that there have been a couple of viruses in the past which were capable of nuking your CMOS. However, a sledgehammer is just as useful if you're looking for "real damage".

    evilviper also said: "The main thing I tried it for, quite recently, was partitioning/formatting, as Windows has a few limitations in that regard. After finishing the job, Windows couldn't even read the partion. FreeDOS is a LONG way from 100% compatible."

    Which version of Windows couldn't see the partition? How big was the FreeDOS partition you tried? Does your BIOS support the size of the hard drive you were testing? In order to make such statements, one should be specific with the details. And if you really want to convince people to NOT use FreeDOS, you should maybe explain just how it "is a LONG way from 100% compatible." besides vague failures.. For all we know, the problem could actually exist between the keyboard and the chair, you evil viper you!

    You seem to have a lot of Anti-FreeDOS FUD with no real facts to back it up.. You work for Microsoft, perhaps?

    My personal reasons to love FreeDOS (recent Win32-ports aside): Terminal Velocity, DOOM, DOOM II, Descent 1 & 2, Death Rally, Epic Pinball.. The list is almost endless! And it's not for the gaming, it's for the nostalgia and memories.

    --Weasel
    [ Parent ]
  • You mean ReactOS (Score:2)

    by tepples (727027) <slash2006@pineight.com> on Monday September 04 2006, @10:53PM (#16041830)
    (http://myatomic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 19 2006, @12:31AM)
    Now, let's start a FreeWindows so we can have a fully compatible Windows 3.11

    The ReactOS team [reactos.org] is already skipping forward to FreeWin2k.

    [ Parent ]
  • by Korin43 (881732) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:13AM (#16042202)
    (http://www.rulingwars.net/)
    Yeah, since SCO has such a strong case..
    [ Parent ]
  • by caseih (160668) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @12:48AM (#16042318)
    Not sure why the parent comment was moderated insightful. FreeDOS has a very bright future and will continue to be used in its niche areas. So indeed it is a very useful project. So I am very grateful for the hard work of the freeDOS developers over all these years. Just the other day I used FreeDOS under dosemu to resurrect some old PowerBASIC code.
    [ Parent ]
  • by geminidomino (614729) * on Tuesday September 05 2006, @01:32AM (#16042506)
    (http://www.mangaschool.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 03 2006, @07:51AM)
    Link please. ;)
    [ Parent ]
  • DOS is DOS is DOS remains DOS. It remains true that even when it came out it was far from state of the art, and that's why I consider cloning it a decade later a waste of time. Of course people are free to do what they want with their time (reimplement ED.EXE in FORTRAN IV, anyone?). But I fear that FREEDOS' existence will just give IT people more pain, because they will continue to have to support the old legacy systems using DOS instead of being forced to re-design their IT in a clean way so as to take into account what has happened in technology since.
    [ Parent ]
  • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.