China DOS Union

FreeDOS is pretty good. I've been using it recently and haven't found any problems yet. Because it's free, so I like it!

Personally, I think any set of system software should be compatible with "old systems", which can be seen from the "WINDOWS" vs. "PS/2" dispute and the "IBM" vs. Apple Inc. dispute. Personally, I don't quite agree with Linux because there are few third-party businesses writing "games" and "commercial programs" based on it. Currently, as far as I know, there are no certain games based on the Linux platform in the market. Many developers are forced to choose Linux because Windows doesn't solve the problem.

Nowadays, it's usually that new systems are compatible with old ones,,,, Win2003 can run programs of Win95.

The new versions of Linux kernels can run well on relatively old releases. I don't know about Mac OS.

"There are very few third - party businesses writing 'games' and 'commercial programs' based on it."

To be honest, Linux is a bit weak in terms of games. Currently, the only relatively well - known one under pure Linux is Q3. So if you want to play games? Go back to Windows. Commercial programs?? Linux emphasizes free. If commercial programs are everywhere, I might as well go back to Windows? It's the same as having to pay money.

"Many developers choose Linux because Windows doesn't solve the problem, and they are very forced to choose Linux."??

Linux and Windows each have their own characteristics. Development is to choose the system that is more suitable. It's not a forced choice... To be honest, both Windows and Linux are N (double - digit) times more usable and practical than DOS. It feels that using DOS now is a kind of complex.

Use your brain to think clearly before speaking,,,, Quote a sentence from a certain forum "Don't talk randomly if you don't know, lest you mislead others."

FreeDOS has a 50KB version, with only two files (if the boot part is not included, it's only 40KB), and it can actually run GHOST8.2. Original post: http://bbs.wuyou.com/cgi-bin/topic.cgi?forum=34&topic=7034

10 PRINT "Maybe, DOS will really be like UNIX, after a glorious era on personal computers, it will be neglected"
20 PRINT "Maybe, it will enter another glorious era."
30 PRINT "Maybe, really there are people like in the old DOS era, regardless of whether it is free and open, whether..."
40 PRINT "Maybe, free and open will make it never return in the DOS system world."
50 PRINT "Maybe, foreign countries are having the 'free and open revolution', WENGIER is their supporter, some people will also oppose, such as me."
60 PRINT "Maybe, ............"
70 PRINT "Supplementary of DEFRAG:"
80 PRINT "I am an opponent of free and open, because 40"

Now it's all about money.

To improve the command interpreter of DOS so that its functions can be as powerful as Unix (I think it should be not difficult, right?)
For those new technologies (USB, NTFS, plug and play, etc.), there should be support in the kernel.
We should step up the development of a 32-bit kernel DOS.
M$ doesn't develop it, otherwise DOS would still continue to be glorious. With M$'s strong strength, it can fully develop such a DOS.

Dark-Destroy said he is not Chinese, which really hurts my feelings. Are Taiwanese not Chinese? If I were a forum administrator, I would tell him to go away. Is there any need to stay for someone who doesn't even know which country he belongs to?
I regretfully tell Dark-Destroy: If you stubbornly think you are not Chinese, then please leave, you are not welcome here.
It's really sad. I first heard a Taiwanese person personally say he is not Chinese, so sad...

Currently, Unix, Linux, DOS, Apple, OS/2 are still in the domain of experts.

When using them, most of the time, you type in incomprehensible characters on the pitch-black screen. Can it be popularized?

Only a popularized operating system has an irresistible force and is recognized by people all over the world.

1. For the development of DOS, breaking through the 1M basic memory is the key. If it is just adding some XMS, DPMI, etc. to manage, it is not a breakthrough. I mean, under normal circumstances, for example, any program can be loaded into the high-end memory above 1G. Memory management should be a function that DOS itself should have, so that the operation of large games and other large applications can be made possible.

2. For the development of DOS, providing a friendly interface is an important condition. Without a friendly interface, how can people who don't understand computers use it?难道 ask them to type in some professional characters on DOS to start programs?

3. For the development of DOS, it must have multi-tasking function. How can a single-task operating system make users run multiple programs? For example, a user wants to listen to music while typing a document or other things. DOS must implement the multi-tasking function in the core, not simulate it by means of TSR, nor implement it through the DOSSHELL method. These, I don't think are multi-tasking. I think the so-called multi-tasking is that the operating system itself manages, and the operation of any application program is parallel. It's just that it is in the foreground or background. The one in the foreground is visible. The one in the background is invisible. Multi-tasking is to bring the background one to the foreground. In fact, whether it is in the background or the foreground, they are still running the same. The multi-tasking function of DOS cannot only rely on the graphics system, such as X-window.

4. For the development of DOS, it must realize the real network function. DOS should realize the network function in itself, not in the form of loading network programs from outside. I think the network function should be an important inseparable part of the operating system, a function that is available after startup, not a function that is loaded additionally after startup. With the network, we can play games under DOS, can access the Internet. Can communicate with people all over the world.

5. For the development of DOS, it must realize the multi-user function. The current DOS is all single-user. I think the so-called multi-user means that one DOS system can log in multiple users. These users may come from the login of their own computer, may also come from users on the local area network, and more likely come from users on the Internet. DOS itself should be like a server and also like a client. It can communicate with any DOS in the world, as long as there is identity authentication, it can communicate with people all over the world.

6. For the development of DOS, it must eventually realize commercialization. Relying solely on some free forces is difficult to fulfill such a重大 responsibility. Only under the condition of commercialization can people have the motivation and pressure to upgrade it, maintain it, and take it as a responsibility and an ambition. If it only relies on some people who like to play in it, how can it give much impetus to it?

7. For the development of DOS, it should integrate game functions and media decoding functions. Only by integrating these can people develop games very conveniently on this platform and use various media very conveniently. An operating system should first have playability, and then talk about usability. If a system even game developers are not willing to join this ranks, how can we talk about its development?

The road is long and arduous...

Can the development of the times call out the hero who can take on this heavy burden...

Now, Windows has spread all over the world. Even if it can achieve the equal status of Windows, how can people choose among them? People are thinking...

Support DOS

lucky9981, what you said is really good and very thorough!! Support!!

Originally posted by baobolz at 2003-4-4 00:00:
Upstairs:
I venture to ask which country you are from, why do you have such a good command of Chinese?

Which country you are from? What does that have to do with having a good command of Chinese? Don't you see that Americans have good English, Malaysians also have good English, and Australians also have good English? Have you heard of an Englishman asking someone of which country the person with good English is from?

I think this is the beginning of luring people into an argument. See, it's indeed not false. It's simply extremely politicized.

Let me put it this way, with the integrity of Singapore, the pragmatism and flexibility of Taiwan, and the drive and scale of China, we can build a powerful country.

When the United States was fighting Japan, they killed a bunch of people with yellow skin. They couldn't even tell who was who. When a country is powerful, there is room for integration, and we can build a huge cultural circle. There's no need to be like those old men on their last legs who say "Those not of our clan must have different hearts".
All day long seeking differences among the same, if we continue to fight within, we'll have to ask the Americans to take you to visit their moon rover~

Alas, this is not a political forum, so I won't say more! Forgot that using Chinese against Chinese is the specialty of the Americans?

Post #69: Currently

Currently, Unix, Linux, DOS, Apple, OS/2 are still the professional domains of experts.

When using them, most of the time you type in hard-to-understand characters on the pitch-black screen. Can it be popularized?

Only a popularized operating system has an irresistible force and is recognized by people all over the world.

1. For DOS to develop, breaking through the 1M basic memory is the key. If it's just adding some XMS, DPMI, etc. to manage, it's not a breakthrough. I mean, in a normal situation, for example, any program can be loaded into the high-end memory above 1G. Memory management should be a function that DOS itself should have, so that the operation of large games and other large applications can be made possible.

2. For DOS to develop, providing a friendly interface is an important condition. Without a friendly interface, how can people who don't understand computers use it?难道叫 them type in some professional characters on DOS to start programs?

3. For DOS to develop, it must have multi-tasking function. How can a single-task operating system make users run multiple programs? For example, a user wants to listen to music while typing a document or doing other things. DOS must implement the multi-tasking function in the core, not by simulating it in the form of TSR, nor by implementing it through the DOSSHELL method. These, I don't think are multi-tasking. I think the so-called multi-tasking means that it is managed by the operating system itself, and the operation of any application program is parallel. Only whether it is in the foreground or the background. The foreground is visible, and the background is invisible. Multi-tasking is to bring the background to the foreground. In fact, whether it is the background or the foreground, they are all running the same. The multi-tasking function of DOS cannot only rely on the graphics system, such as X-window.

4. For DOS to develop, it must realize real network function. DOS should implement the network function in itself, not in the form of loading a network program from the outside. I think the network function should be an important inseparable part of the operating system, a function that is available after startup, not a function that is loaded separately after startup. With the network, we can play games under DOS, surf the Internet, and communicate with people all over the world.

5. For DOS to develop, it must realize multi-user function. The current DOS is all single-user. I think the so-called multi-user means that one DOS system can log in multiple users. These users may come from the login of their own computer, may come from users on the local area network, and may even come from users on the Internet. DOS itself should be like a server and also like a client. It can communicate with any DOS in the world, as long as there is identity authentication, it can communicate with people all over the world.

6. For the development of DOS, it must finally realize commercialization. Relying solely on some free forces is difficult to fulfill such a重大 responsibility. Only under the condition of commercialization can people have the motivation and pressure to upgrade it, maintain it, and take it as a responsibility and an ambition. If it's just for some people to play around, how can it be promoted greatly?

7. For the development of DOS, it should integrate game functions and media decoding functions. Only by integrating these can people develop games very conveniently on this platform and use various media very conveniently. An operating system should first have playability, and then talk about usability. If a system doesn't even attract game developers to join this circle, how can we talk about its development?

A long way to go...

Can the development of the times call out the hero who can shoulder this heavy burden?...

Now, Windows has spread all over the world. Even if it can reach the equal status of Windows, how can people choose among them? People are thinking...

Sigh!!!

Who can take on the heavy responsibility for the development of DOS? To develop DOS is not just talking, but to take action now, seek the development model, and form a development team, form a development team, form a development team, form a development team. Just like Linux

Transfer:

littlekiss
Newcomer





Points 3
Posts 3
Registered 2005-10-29
Status Offline 『Building 19』:

Linux, I generally don't enter Windows except for playing games and using PPT. I came here because of curiosity. I didn't expect there to be also a supporter of the DOS era. I don't know much about DOS, at most I only know some commands. But I have looked at the forum for a long time and haven't found the reason why MS gave up DOS back then? Don't say it's just because of the graphical interface, that's probably just on the business side. The XWindows under Linux is actually very rubbish, but we see that many servers run Linux or other Unix-like systems. As for multi-DOS, I think there's no need to say anything. As for PCs, basically MS is dominant alone, and DOS is just used as his auxiliary, or just exists as an auxiliary for administrators or operators. I'm not denigrating DOS, I just want to show that DOS was once so glorious, but the reality is like this. DOS went from big to small, while Linux went from small to big. The reasons behind it are恐怕 very complicated.

Should be recommended