China DOS Union

Previously, I was very enthusiastic about making boot disks, finding various latest DOS software, playing MP3s under DOS, and surfing the Internet, etc. However, for these functions, DOS has never done a very good job.

Seeing so many people persevering in DOS applications and making DOS boot disks, I rethought whether what we are doing is really of great significance?

So I gradually lost interest in things like boot disks.

Now I finally understand that what DOS urgently needs now is development!

64-bit CPUs are already prevailing, but DOS is still stuck at 16-bit. How sad and anxious that is!

The developers of FreeDOS said that FreeDOS wants to be a DOS that is 100% compatible with MS-DOS. But now I think actually this is not very necessary. Of course, it should be mostly compatible, but what really can't be done doesn't need to be forced. We need more functions of DOS. For a non-compatible program, as long as we can develop an alternative program, why force compatibility? Development is more important.

Now FreeDOS-32 is also under development, and we all hope that it can be put into practical application as soon as possible. However, now they want to be compatible with 16-bit DOS programs and 32-bit VCPI programs. These problems undoubtedly greatly slow down its development progress. Are these really important? For now, we just need to work hard to improve its functions. As for compatibility, don't force it. Be compatible as much as possible. If it's really difficult, put it aside for the time being and can be dealt with slowly when it is basically stable later. In addition, DOS doesn't need to be compatible with very old hardware at all. Instead, it should be more compatible with new hardware.

Only by completely changing the kernel to 32-bit can the future development of DOS have hope. People with strength should develop their own DOS together or get involved in the development of FreeDOS-32 and software on its platform.

The above are purely personal views. If you have different opinions, please feel free to communicate and discuss. Thank you.
Preparing to plan to learn C++ and assembly...

Yes! What you said is great! These two points are also what I thought:

"Now the most urgent need for DOS is development!"
"For an incompatible program, as long as an alternative program can be developed, why force compatibility? Development is more important."

The reason why I am reluctant to give up some old programs in the past is precisely because there are no new ones that can replace them yet, or they are not as good as the old ones.
Now people have to do some things under Windows, that is because there are no corresponding software in DOS to realize the corresponding functions.
I hope that in the future, when DOS develops, it will not discard its traditional inherent spirit, that is, openness, transparency, simplicity, and ease of use. The latter point is precisely its advantage compared with UNIX-like systems.

Still simple is better. Actually, most of the functions in Windows we don't use. It just keeps eating more memory, consuming more CPU, and using more video memory.

Recently, what Jack E, Japheth and others have been doing is exactly the development work of DOS. Tools like QCDROM, HX are very useful, especially the latter which can make DOS run many WIN programs.

Yeah, it should be the hard truth to let DOS develop towards new hardware. If you don't want to give up the old DOS software, you can make a virtual DOS that is compatible with 16-bit DOS. For XP, there is a cmd, and for the new DOS, there can also be a dcmd.exe. Now CPUs are already multi-core, and mobile phones are going to be "mini notebooks". If DOS is still stuck in 32-bit or even 16-bit single-task mode, the space for DOS will be too small.

If really making new software that can completely replace the previous DOS, there's no need to make a 16-bit virtual DOS. Actually, I think as long as the previous application software under DOS is rewritten according to new requirements. For example, Softscape's PC Tools is the PC Tools 5.0 adapted to the new environment.

Originally posted by DOSforever at 2009-4-20 02:32 PM:
If you really make new software that can completely replace the previous DOS, there is no need to make a 16-bit virtual DOS. Actually, I think as long as the previous application software under DOS is rewritten according to new requirements...

With the current resources, it is not enough to make 32 or 64-bit DOS. It's a pity... but it's reality.

There are not enough open source developers in China. 64-bit DOS must require 64-bit software and be compatible with the old ones, otherwise there is no meaning of DOS.

For an incompatible program, as long as an alternative program can be developed, why force compatibility? Development is more important.

However, rewriting all programs will be a huge project.
And some program authors have lost contact or the source code is lost.

I hope that in the future, when DOS develops, it will not discard its traditional inherent spirit, which is openness, transparency, simplicity, and ease of use. The latter point is exactly its advantage compared with UNIX-like systems.

To be honest, DOS has its own set. Single Tasking is very convenient for system hardware testing or executing some programs that need high-speed real-time response, which cannot be completely replaced by Linux.

If you don't need to be compatible with previous calling methods, then why not directly use Linux and its variants? You know that extremely streamlined Linux doesn't consume much more resources than DOS. Many DOS software are too tightly combined with the system kernel and even directly program for hardware (caused by the extremely lack of hardware support from the DOS system itself - such as the lack of bus - like drivers), so it's very difficult to re - compile to other platforms after small modifications.