No announcement yet.

What kind of Dos is the best ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I am running DOS 6.22 with an old PowerBasic app using MS Virtual PC
    on a Windows XP host machine (P4, 3GHz).
    No problem.
    Only one side effect: Because DOS programmers did not
    think about multi-programming on same machine,
    Windows XP assigns 50% CPU to the Power Basic Dos App because
    it is simply waiting, oooops, not correct:
    Simply looping to wait for keyboard input etc.
    However, I also solved this problem using some good old
    ASM to program interrupt-driven WAIT for PB.




      the CPU-Time of a DOS-APP is a problem too, my Notebook accu
      is down in very shorter as possible time.

      I´m changing to PB8 Win too but. It´s a lot of work . So I need
      time using the old prog´s so long.


      Matthias Kuhn



        I want to say,
        there might be no need to re-write PB-DOS app in case you
        use MS Virtual PC to run it in a virtual DOS machine.

        Actually we are considering to port several old PB-DOS programs,
        used for data acquisition on different DOS-PCs, to run in
        several Virtual Dos machines under Virtual PC on one
        Windows XP host.
        Simply to get rid of the old HW we can not replace in case it
        However, this will work only in case you do not use
        specialized HW, like special interface cards etc.
        Serial comms works like a charm under Virtual DOS, though.


        (oder Freundliche Grüße ?)



          I can't vouch for it, but I think IBM still sells PC DOS.
          The new version is PC DOS 2000.


          I think they should continue the policy of
          not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling.

          - Jack Handy


            Yes Shawn ..

            I can't vouch for it, but I think IBM still sells PC DOS.
            The new version is PC DOS 2000.
            I can't recall the source in the OS/2 discussion forums, but the
            noted total licenses in use for IBM's operation with it were as
            I recall, some six million registered users. Of course, one would
            think that has to include all the OS/2 operations as well in that
            the product is incorporated into OS/2. Which though IBM is now
            refusing to 'sell' additional copies of OS/2 as of December 23, 2005,
            is still Passport Advantage supported until December 31, 2006, for
            whatever that means. And .. per several folks' comments at
            WarpStock .. still bound up in "TCO" support until 2019, whatever
            that means and to whom.

            IBM, as widely noted, is hard pushing those users to move to LINUX
            with their operations. The, what was it, 600+ million settlement
            from Microsoft to IBM over the damages to the PC Division of IBM
            and of which I think some 70+ million was also involved in the
            internal damages to IBM over internal hardware issues is significant.
            Although I don't know the details, obviously, there would have to
            be, one would think, something of an issue here over DOS and so on
            that must have been a part of that.

            As well, the case, as best I understand, is still open as to damages
            to the server outfit side of IBM, as well as operating system issues
            which, as best I can tell, have yet to be resolved. But whomever holds
            claim to whatever of DOS, either by itself as distributed by IBM and
            the DOS 'client object', if we can call it that, in OS/2, the work sure
            delivered a WONDERFUL way to work with PowerBasic 3.5 and so on in
            that world. The best DOS ever, in my view.

            I can tell you from personal experience, that even with the R40 and R51
            series of IBM Thinkpads, you can still get, as far as I've found out,
            a very stable DOS environment in DOS-VDM's for OS/2. That with the
            most recent MCP2 product and fixes. I'm told the same holds true for
            the T series Thinkpads as well.

            And .. I've been able, with IBM's help here, as well as that of Jan
            Van Wijk of DFSEE fame, to get the whole service operation from
            floppy diskette boot runs to an OS/2 command line, to be able to
            completely clone the R40 and R51 Thinkpads, booted from a USB floppy
            diskette, into USB 2.0 IDE hard disk external operations for total
            backup and security. That includes even WIN XP parts of the operation,
            whatever. I can then go and move that back in reverse clone operations
            to any other similar Thinkpad. Including the whole DOS operations
            for PowerBasic development work.

            That includes running as many as five separat DOS-VDM PB 3.5 operations
            on the same box totally synced and controlled by the op system, including
            full comm port work as well there on the common box.

            Thus, as long as hardware exists with which to work with the IBM
            platform, I view the best possible solution as that one for DOS for
            PowerBasic work, from my personal experience. Again, that's just
            my view folks. But PB releated templates on OS/2 networked operations
            in my world now exceed over 60,000 total hour uptime operations with
            less than two hours of failure .. and *NO* data loss at all.

            That's significant. Yes, in DOS work too.

            Now .. that said. It seems realistic to view that one reason IBM is
            trying so hard to move this to LINUX is to clean up all this mess over
            who and what, legally, relative to DOS, WIN and particularly network
            operations which were DOS and OS/2 and WIN related as part of the IBM

            Which so said, brings us ever more back to the VERY much needed part
            of the future of PowerBasic and where we all have to go, one way or
            another. I fully understand Bob Zale's reluctance to set any date when
            this or that LINUX operation will be around. But moving the whole shift
            of mission critical work that PowerBasic is so blessedly reliable for,
            absolutely means DOS in LINUX, as far as I can see, and then the ability
            to move that direct, in common (reasonably common) source to native
            LINUX. It and the licensing and all for the whole show are really
            needed for PB's future and that of all of us in my humble opinion.

            I guarantee you I'm waiting patiently for Bob's contribution to all
            of us here in relation to that. DOS for the shift, as well as native
            for the, in humor here, 'shiftless', grin?

            The instability and woe, as I see it, of what is needed for embedded
            systems and mission critcal work in DOS .. has no future in the
            normal stance which PB must, truthfully, take as to a WIN product.
            What we need is the stability and multi-tasking operations of OS/2's
            DOS .. so wonderfully done .. in LINUX so we can all go forward.

            So to that end .. may the Lights of the Season shine on all of us
            and PowerBasic for all of next year as we go forward with this wonderful
            world we have.

            Omain ..

            Mike Luther
            [email protected]
            Mike Luther
            [email protected]


              Has anyone used powerbasic with freedos? Is it compatible?





                the CPU-Time of a DOS-APP is a problem too, my Notebook accu
                is down in very shorter as possible time.
                TameDos fixes this:

                When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil.
                - Jack Handy


                  Originally posted by Frank Thomas:
                  Has anyone used powerbasic with freedos? Is it compatible?


                  Of course! I've done it on many occasions. The compiler and IDE seem to function fine.

                  Had freedos been around 20 years ago, it would have totally killed MS-DOS. It's command interpreter is so far ahead of that it's not even funny. FreeDOS is about as compatible with MS-DOS as you can get without running MS-DOS. Any incompatibilities are bugs and should be reported to the freedos folks who will fix them.


                  [This message has been edited by Michael Torrie (edited January 11, 2006).]


                    Same experience - with one little exception: I could not get to work PB TSRs on FreeDOS; the line "POPUP SLEEP" always generated an error 5 (?) "Invalid Function Call".


                    Hans Ruegg


                      DOS Dead??? In the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry it isn't
                      dead, although its no spring chicken either! We use it
                      exclusively on handheld data recorders to collect timber
                      information. I had originally written all the programs in QB45,
                      but eventually converted most of them to PB DOS 3.5. Last year
                      we sold 44 million dollars worth of timber, almost all of it
                      logged with our data recorders running DOS.

                      The major issue for our people is simplicity and not losing
                      any data. Most of the world's furniture grade Black cherry comes
                      from our forests, and one tree can be worth several thousand
                      dollars. No loss of data is acceptable. In the programming I
                      especially like PB's Flush buffer command, so that I don't have
                      to resort to assembler or other subtrafuges to thwart Dos's
                      propensity to stash data in buffers.

                      We can still get DOS data collectors, but I believe the end
                      is in sight. In the course of the next year I'm hoping to do all
                      the reprogramming in Windows CE, and I'd give quite a lot if
                      PowerBasic would work with that platform but it doesn't.

                      The outfit we get data recorders from is Juniper Systems, a
                      subsidery of Harvest Master. At that company they are not
                      completely enthralled with Windows CE and losing DOS, and have
                      even considered use of command line Linux on their machines. The
                      other day a UPS man made a delivery at our office and I noted
                      he had a command line data recorder that he told me UPS
                      manufactures itself. In my mind there is still a use for operating
                      systems such as this. In fact, if Windows CE supported the
                      Console subsystem that desktop systems have (and on which PB's Console
                      Compiler is based), I'd use that instead of GUI apps.



                        Yes, it's dead, that's why so many people do highlight since years that it's dead .

                        Davide Vecchi
                        [email protected]


                          DOS isn't dead and won't die until something better comes along.



                            FreeDOS seems to work just fine - in fact, several recovery CDs or
                            applications that require you to reboot use it rather than one of
                            the other DOS choices. I tried some Win98 command line utilities
                            under FreeDOS with no complaints and no surprises.

                            In the works is EreeDOS64, but it is stickly Alpha code - not very
                            stable, and without much in the way of features.

                            PB/DOS works fine with MSDOS, including the flavors found under all
                            versions of Windows. You can edit and compile there, and you can
                            run finished code there.

                            Windows permit you to mark some additional memory as extended or
                            expanded memory, or both. If you can take advantage of it (and
                            PB/DOS IDE permits you to designate memory use), that eliminates
                            some of your memory crunch.

                            You can install a version of Windows9x/Me and tailor the
                            Autoexec.bat file so that it remains in command mode rather than
                            starting up windows. Unfortunately, you cannot avail yourself of
                            some of the enhanced features provided by windows if you do that.
                            Such as the ability to recognize and use more memory, or to use
                            Long File Names.

                            However, you can make it so that windows engages the MSDOS mode
                            and starts either PB/DOS or your developed app when it boots.

                            You also have the ability to suppress the opening windows icon so
                            that the box looks like it is running pure DOS, when in fact it
                            is going into windows then shelling out again to the command

                            There is absolutely nothing wrong with DOS when it comes to
                            dedicated applications, except that the screen modes are somewhat
                            limited, it may not be able to work with newer devices, and it
                            may be limited by accessable memory. Though FreeDOS claims that
                            you can work with more than 32MB of RAM if properly configured,
                            it seems that the system cannot report more than 32MB of RAM. I
                            had no time in my experiments to sort that all out. It's just
                            a clue to what you may be dealing with.

                            Old Navy Chief, Systems Engineer, Systems Analyst, now semi-retired