Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

FreeDOS 1.0 Released 365

Posted by kdawson
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeDOS 1.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • 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?
  • hooray! (Score:5, Funny)

    by doofusclam (528746) <slash@seanyseansean.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:09PM (#16040361) Homepage
    ~writes new MS-DOS compatible apps~
  • by varunnangia (999363) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:09PM (#16040363) Homepage
    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 :(
    • Does it run better than it would in DOSbox?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by varunnangia (999363)
        IIRC, DOSbox is based on FreeDOS. So unless the DOSbox devs have changed the installer code, I'd suppose not.
    • by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @07:46AM (#16043724) Homepage
      *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.

      -
  • 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?

    • ReactOS? (Score:2, Informative)

      by varunnangia (999363)
      I know it's not the same as WfWG3.11, but what about ReactOS [reactos.org]? Still a long way to go, but you can begin to run applications on it. And it's 100% FOSS.
  • Dos 1.0?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by scenestar (828656) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:13PM (#16040390) Homepage Journal
    And I Thought debian's release cycle was slow.
  • by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:16PM (#16040407) Homepage
    The submitter didn't even bother putting a link to freedos.org [freedos.org] into the submission!
  • 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
    • by mh101 (620659)
      Don't forget not everyone has Windows. I've run FreeDOS on my Mac in an emulated PC environment to play the good old DOS games.

      • by Danga (307709)
        Don't forget not everyone has Windows. I've run FreeDOS on my Mac in an emulated PC environment to play the good old DOS games.

        Ok, so how is Free-DOS any better than Dr. DOS which I have heard is a lot more stable than Free-DOS or even spending less than 20 dollars to get a geniune version of MS-DOS 6.22 and running that in your emulated PC environment? I still see no real gain to using Free-DOS over anything else that is available, especially just getting a copy of the real thing. I see no area that usin
    • While this is a cool accomplishment does it serve any real useful purpose? I have had no need for MS-DOS

      So... since YOU don't need it, no one else does, either? OK. I can play that game, too.
      I have a Mac, and no use for Windows. Therefore, no one else should have Windows, either.

      There. Now we've solved all of the world's problems.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:30PM (#16040469) Homepage
    ...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.
    • Network admin here. I take care of about 150 computers in a small school district. I've been using Ghost 8 for the last two years, and it's worked great. For a boot disk, I've been using Bart's Boot Disk [nu2.nu] also for the last two years. I download the image, grab all the additional driver plug-ins that I need for the different network cards that are around (though I got a crapload of Intel Pro/100 PCI NICs lying around for whenever I run into an oddball NIC now and again). After I created the disk, got the
  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:38PM (#16040501) Homepage Journal
    Finally! Now I can run loadlin on a completely free OS!
  • by Jack Action (761544) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:40PM (#16040508)

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Why not Linux + Dosbox instead?
    • 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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jack Action (761544)

        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.

        Trackers create and play their own samples. Soundfonts, however, are samples. They are loaded directly into the soundcard, where they are available to be used by a sequencer, keyboard etc.

        The two examples cited above -- Sequence

  • by gsn (989808)
    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
  • Good job, guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnappyCrunch (583594) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:54PM (#16040586) Homepage
    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.
  • I've never been able to get that running on a modern machine.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • 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 g
    • by fm6 (162816)
      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.
      We get those on every story. Not usually a majority though. Labor day?
  • 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
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by k98sven (324383)
      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) ?

      What a smart-assed comment. What's your point? That you think that you (or the FreeDOS guys) know more about OS design than Tanenbaum? I doubt that very much. Tanenbaum wasn't saying a microkernel was the "right" way. He was saying it was the modern way.

      It took less than a year for two guys to build the Wright Flye
  • will it run Duke Nuke 'em Forever?
  • Does it support Intel Macs? I can't find them mentioned on the project pages.
  • Screenshots (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bobby Cannon (926456) on Monday September 04, 2006 @08:30PM (#16041066) Homepage
    Where's the screenshots?
  • 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.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...