China DOS Union

This post was originally posted in the Boot Disk Room, but today it is reposted here. The reason is that I found that there are development talents gathered here.

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=26364 (This link is added by the administrator for reference)
-----------------------

There are already many, many kinds of DOS. Is it necessary to establish a new DOS? For many years, I also had such an idea, so I have never advocated establishing a new DOS; even when I saw the announcement for recruiting FreeDOS managers on the FreeDOS website, I never thought of establishing a new DOS or applying for managing FreeDOS.

But now, I really think it is necessary to establish a new DOS. The main reasons are as follows:

1. The development of FreeDOS is in a stagnant state, and it cannot meet the increasing DOS needs and applications at all. The fact that several kinds of DOS have been born after FreeDOS is the best proof.

2. FreeDOS claims to be 100% compatible with MS-DOS, but unfortunately, it is not 100% compatible. The current industrial standard DOS is the DOS in Microsoft's Win98. FreeDOS is far from being able to replace this DOS, so it is simply not ideal.

3. There are many other DOSes, but none of them has taken "fully compatible with Microsoft's DOS" as a goal to do.

Therefore, I think it is necessary to establish a new DOS. The main task of this DOS is to fully compatible with Microsoft's DOS and can replace Microsoft's DOS (for example, typing win under it can start Win98).

-----------------

It is possible for us to develop a new DOS. Although DOS is complex, it is much simpler than Windows. There are many existing projects with the presence of DOS. For example, Wine, DOSEMU, DOSBOX, ReactOS, FreeDOS, NX-DOS, etc., these are all open-source software. We also have Microsoft's DOS lying there to test whether we have achieved compatibility. These are all favorable conditions. More importantly, we have a large number of high-quality DOS talents in the forum, which is a rare and precious resource.

-----------------

Developing the DOS kernel can greatly improve the technical level of developers and discover more technical secrets of Microsoft. This is of inestimable role for both veterans and novices.

-----------------

Developing the DOS kernel is meaningful. DOS is a mature and simple operating system with a long history. DOS is impossible to die out, which is determined by its maturity and simplicity. This is its inner beauty. DOS and BIOS complement each other to forge the PC history, so it has a solid foundation and will not withdraw from the historical stage overnight. You cannot eliminate something with both rich connotation and extension. Although Windows and Linux are performing on the current stage, they cannot represent the whole world. DOS seems to be a link that connects different things. There are already mature DOS emulators under Linux, and Win9x is更是 an application under DOS. Even Microsoft, which day and night desires to eliminate DOS, has to continue to reserve a place for DOS in its latest version of Windows. The world cannot do without DOS, and we cannot do without DOS even more!

----------------------

Okay, no more idle talk. I hope everyone can pay attention to and discuss this topic. This is the purpose of my proposal today. I myself cannot undertake this task (I have other things to do). Otherwise, I would not give it to others:-). I hope those who share the same aspiration will seriously consider this issue and have the courage to undertake this heavy responsibility. I will do my best to support you!

P.S. Modesty is a virtue, but I seem not to be modest enough. To tell the truth, I really can't do it because I haven't studied DOS in depth and only stay at the level of slightly understanding.

Top～～～可惜 I don't know how

What Bu Dian said is very much to the point, especially I fully agree with this passage:

1. The development of FreeDOS is in a stagnant state and cannot meet the increasing DOS needs and applications at all. The fact that several kinds of DOS have emerged after FreeDOS is the best proof of this.

2. FreeDOS claims to be 100% compatible with MS-DOS, but unfortunately, it is not 100% compatible. The current industrial standard DOS is the DOS in Microsoft's Win98. FreeDOS is far from being able to replace this DOS, so it is fundamentally not ideal.

3. There are many other DOSes, but none of them has taken "fully compatible with Microsoft's DOS" as a goal to pursue.

I once suggested to the developers of FreeDOS to strengthen compatibility, especially compatibility with MS-DOS 7, such as supporting the startup of Win9x. Unfortunately, the main developers represented by Eric did not take it to heart, let alone take practical actions. Therefore, establishing a DOS of our own is the real solution.

Due to various reasons such as time, I cannot take the lead directly. But I hope everyone will actively pay attention to or participate in this meaningful action to truly give full play to the potential of DOS.

Will fully support and actively participate.

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-1-23 03:46 AM:
I once suggested to the developers of FreeDOS to strengthen compatibility, especially with MS-DOS 7, such as supporting the boot of Win9x. Unfortunately, the main developers represented by Eric don't take it seriously, let alone take practical actions. So, building our own DOS is the real solution.

1) STRENGTHEN COMPATIBILITY: FreeDOS has no plan to change those "home-made" multi-boot settings

2) I don't think running Windows 95/98 on FreeDOS has practical use (because Win9x is a Microsoft patent), but "can run but I won't use" doesn't mean "can't", so what Wengier said is still meaningful

3) FreeDOS has no leader! Jim Hall doesn't want to take care of things other than web files, Eric Auer is not an authorized leader, just a low-output forum active participant

Due to various reasons such as time, I can't take the lead directly. But I hope everyone actively pays attention to or participates in this meaningful action, so that the potential of DOS can really be brought into full play.

Now making a DOS from scratch involves too much, which is not very possible for amateur users.

There is a solution. The most ideal way is to start a branch from FreeDOS. We need to decide which version to start with, and also see who here is willing to be responsible for the kernel. This is not a simple task...

We have also considered Enhanced DR-DOS, but it doesn't work. The structure is too far from the original MS-DOS, and the contract terms restrict development.

Currently, only LZ-DOS (http://dos.nm.ru) is more desirable. The Russians modified the core from MS-DOS, which can run with long filenames, and all settings are the same as MS-DOS, but the copyright issue cannot be completely solved. Theoretically, MS won't sue for some free things, but we can't rule out this possibility.

Originally posted by Budian at 2007-1-22 09:46 AM:
For example, Wine, DOSEMU, DOSBOX, ReactOS, FreeDOS, NX-DOS, etc. These are all open-source software. We also have Microsoft's DOS there to test whether we have achieved compatibility. These are all favorable conditions. More importantly, we have a large number of high-quality DOS talents on the forum, which is a rare and valuable resource.

Simply put, we need a "usable" DOS, not a all-powerful, ideal DOS. So we must start with the above open-source resources, which saves a lot of time and effort

By the way, modesty is a virtue. I seem to be not modest enough. To be honest, I really can't do it because I haven't studied DOS in depth, just at a slightly understanding level.

When it comes to real work, there's no need to be too modest, otherwise it will slow down the progress.

Brother johnsonlam, in fact, even how to carry out this project can be discussed.

I have an immature opinion of my own, which is as follows. I'm not familiar with DOS, but at the same time, I feel that the size of DOS isn't particularly daunting, so it's possible for us to dissect it.

Since I don't understand DOS and don't know what predecessors have done, what I say below is from my perspective, which may not be suitable for everyone.

First of all, I find that the boot process of DOS is very mysterious. I think we should form a branch group to study the boot of MS-DOS. That is, analyze its boot code item by item. Then strip out the parts that really belong to the kernel.

I've just heard of LZ-DOS for the first time. Thank you. I think this is very good. If it can support the running of win.com, we can start from it to study. We won't copy it, but I think that studying the secrets hidden by Microsoft doesn't constitute infringement.

wengier has reduced the IO of more than 200 KB by half. I think there are still a lot of redundancies in this half, for example, purely for encryption, deliberately not allowing people to understand. After we "shell it off", we can reveal the prototype of the real DOS kernel.

--------------

Of course, we can also not care about how DOS boots, but only study the interfaces provided by DOS. But I think it may be difficult to find the real secret of DOS running win.com.

Of course, ralf brown's interrupt list is very good. We can check whether FreeDOS fully implements the functions in this list. If there are any omissions, we can make patches to improve it, which may also make FreeDOS able to run win.com.

In short, this project is very large and needs everyone to do it together. Everyone can start from different angles and with different entry points. Then, everyone exchanges experiences, learns from each other's strengths and supplements each other's weaknesses, and learns from each other.

Well, that's just my idea. It can also be regarded as my contribution to this proposal.

Originally posted by Budian at 2007-1-22 06:50 PM:
Brother johnsonlam, in fact, even how to carry out this project can be discussed.

I have an immature opinion of my own, and I will state it as follows. I am not familiar with DOS, however, at the same time I feel ...

Budian, you are still being too modest. As the author of GRUB for DOS, you must have a considerable understanding of DOS, not to mention the knowledge of system booting.

Last year, a foreigner mentioned to me that back then, the Caldera company that developed DR-DOS sued MS for hiding the secret of booting the Win9x GUI under DOS, and developed a TSR program of about 1-2KB to prove to the judge that systems like DR-DOS could also run the Win9x GUI interface through this secretly designed interface. Unfortunately, the Caldera company does not seem to have made this program public. Ralf Brown's Interrupt List also mentioned some unique APIs, such as MS-DOS 7 Version Check, Get/Set Registry entry, etc., but some of the parameters there have question marks, and further research is needed to find the real values. But since the Caldera company could do it back then, theoretically it must be achievable.

I hope someone will come forward to maintain this project. However, if really no one can come forward, in fact, a flock of sheep can move forward without a leading sheep. If wengier creates a special discussion area for fans, I think it may become lively. I advocate creating a separate discussion area. Don't worry about lack of popularity. This DOS is different from grub because grub's discussions are relatively few. Grub is just a tool software, so it can be placed in the boot disk room. However, the development of the DOS kernel will be very large. If it is also embedded in the development room, I think it may be chaotic. That is to say, everyone will have a hard time searching for posts about "DOS kernel development" in the future.

It seems that we first need to come up with a name for this project in order to open a special discussion area. I'll start it, called MR-DOS. Everyone continues to come up with names, and the most popular name will be the name of this project.

MR has no special meaning. It is the abbreviation of Mister. Microsoft's MS-DOS is Miss DOS, and we will call it Mister DOS, ready to dance with Miss DOS. DR-DOS (DOS Doctor) can also often come to visit.

I downloaded LZ-DOS, and its IO.SYS is very small, only 74 KB. Is there really no one using it? What a pity!

Here you can download: http://dos.nm.ru

This is a bad EXE file. It's not a disk image but requires you to insert a floppy disk and write directly to it.

I can't find a good floppy drive or good floppy disks in the office.

Who can help generate a floppy disk image with it? Thanks in advance.

The RAR is extracted to get a 162KB image; made by WINIMGE to get a standard 1.4M one. All are inside.
http://zhenlove.com.cn/cndos/fileup/files/LZDOS71E.zip

This DOS is really good! ;)
========
No need to extract. That EXE is a WinImage Self Extractor file. Just change the extension directly to IMG/IMA.

[ Last edited by cmlsml on 2007-1-26 at 08:47 PM ]

RAR can actually be decompressed. Learned a trick. Everyone study it and see if it can be shelled again. I always feel that it should probably be able to be streamlined further.

Also, everyone try to see if it can start win98.

Looking forward to further discoveries from all the experts

Report a failed message. Replace the Microsoft IO.SYS with this IO.SYS, and Win98 cannot boot on my machine.
When booting, it shows: Windows found that the registry is corrupted and has restored the latest backup. Then it can only restart the computer.

RE Post 14:
Post 8 said: "Through this secretly designed interface, the Win9x GUI interface can also be run. Unfortunately, the Caldera company does not seem to have made this program public. The Ralf Brown's Interrupt List also mentions some unique APIs, such as MS-DOS 7 Version Check, Get/Set Registry entry, etc." And LZ-DOS only is compatible with MS-DOS and does not include this "secretly designed interface"! It's a trade secret!