Re: [Freedos-devel] [Freedos-user] XMS Manager on '286

[Arkady V.B. <ar...@be...>]

Hi!

17-=ED=C1=D2-2005 05:25 _ai...@wa... (Aitor Santamar?a Merino) wr=
ote to
fre...@li...:

>>ASM> Ok, let me re-phrase: of course it is based on 3.30,
>>     Same, as Linux "based" on Unix or WinXP "based" on Win9x.
ASM> Wrong example: Linux has nothing to do with a Unix in its

     It have same roots, also as MS-DOS 5 have same roots with 3.3
(notwithstanding how much of previous code was remained in 5.0 from 3.3).

ASM> WinXP/ME. I don't think that MS have rewritten MS-DOS 5.10 either, b=
ut
ASM> it is based on the MS-DOS 3.30 sources.

     They may preserve much of 3.3 in 5.0, they may rewrite most of 3.3 i=
n
5.0 - this is unimportant. Fact is: 4.0 and 5.0 are sufficiently differen=
t
from 3.3. Another example, changed INT25/26 and introduced support for FA=
T16
more than 32 Mb (ie., partition type 5).

>>ASM> but I think it goes much further than that:
>>     Contraditcion: "don't think is an improvement" or "goes much furth=
er"?
ASM> This sort of things happens when one does not want to understand.
ASM> diff (MS-DOS 5.X, MS-DOS 6.X) << diff(MS-DOS 3.30, 5.0)
ASM> where << is the sign meaning in phisics MUCH LESS.

     I agreed with last sentence, but you start this thread from contrary
sentence ("I don't think MS-DOS 5.0 is an improvement over 3.3").

>>ASM> improved memory management,
>>     "Improved"? DOS' memory management is too dumb to improve it. Or, =
you
>>mean additions in MM for UMB and HMA?
ASM> For me, the ability to use the extended memory is an improvement.

     But DOS doesn't deal with extended memory, this is issue of external
driver (himem, qemm, etc). (Ok, you may begin discussion - is himem part =
of
DOS or it independent. But fact is: you can't allocate extended memory
through INT 21.)

>>>>ASM> (4) The necessity to comply with RBIL was questioned in this lis=
t time ago
>>>>   And?
>>ASM> Just to mention some.
>>     ? You mean: "spec should mention RBIL as reference source"?
ASM> No. I mean that I can't remember exactly the stage, but there was a
ASM> moment where MS-DOS behaviour does not go along RBIL,

     You mean, RBIL contains bugs in some descriptions?

ASM> and the spec
ASM> mentions RBIL in this case (although it claims about MS compatibilit=
y too).

     I can't understand your intention, idea of these your sentences. You
wish to say, that RBIL descriptions somewhere differs from MS-DOS behavio=
r
and this somewhat should be reflected in spec?