>>100181159
FreeDOS bros...

>>100181181
FreeDOS can benefit from this

>>100181159
More importantly, it's free software too now.

>>100181159
so by around 2050 we'll have open sourced XP?

>>100181192
FreeDOS is already more optimized than this microshit slop

Who gives a fuck? It's not like everyone and their dogs, cats and birds didn't write a DOS clone already. This is MS's continued attempt to shit on open source with inane shit

>>100181192
FreeDOS is probably much better than MS-DOS. Though this doesn't say a whole lot since it took like 20 years for it to hit 1.0.

>>100181230
20 years of autism and $0 to create better product than what microsoft made using millions dollars and infinitely more manhours

>>100181159
>mit licensed
huh that's pretty cool

>>100181250
>microsoft made
LMAO
They bought it, then proceeded to bloat it over the years until they decided to nerf it for Windows 95 (so that you don't try to run Windows with a 3rd party DOS)

>>100181215
of course it's more optimized, it's not weighed down by years of rushed spaghetti code and has modern advantages

>>100181279
>they decided to nerf it for Windows 95
it was basically a bootloader for windows at that point

>>100181215
FreeDOS is actually pretty bloated from the POV of a 5150

Didn’t the dos 6 source get leaked ages ago?

>>100181915
it was a beta snapshot and incomplete

>>100181763
Where's it at in terms of capabilities? 6.22?

>>100181230
>>100181215
it's still useful for bugfixes

>>100181997
Bugfixing what? Who the hell is using MS-DOS for anything these days? Just use FreeDOS or Windows 98.

>>100182035
freedos is what i'm talking about fixing bugs in retard

>>100182099
All DOS does is call BIOS interrupts, which are well documented and dumb OEM shit has always been easier to reverse engineer and work around. The only use for this I can see is running Windows 3.1 in enhanced mode

>still using Microsoft products after the code for MS-DOS 4 gets posted online
shiggy diggy

>>100181997
FreeDOS is designed to be a bug-for-bug compatible clone of a very simple OS. I'd be surprised if there was even much for them to learn from MS-DOS code.
If MS open-sourced an old version of NT Windows, though, that would be a gold mine, which is why MS will never do it.

>>100181159
This will be revolutionary for the ReactOS community

They have been open source for 10 years already, they just weren’t published on GitHub for social media brain addled retards like you to notice them

>in the spirit of open innovation
>releases irrelevant dogshit ancient version nobody ever used

>>100182215
retarded ass doesn't know what open source is
just because you can see code doesn't mean it's open source

>>100182306
It needs to be on GitHub.com to be open source right?
Fucking retard

>>100182215
that was MS-DOS 1.0 and 2.0, the 4.0 code was unreleased

>>100182176
i mean as in UNINTENDED bugs
also
>ignoring the multiple Windows leaks that have happened over the years

File: baitor.jpg (6 KB, 231x218)

6 KB JPG

>>100182306
>just because you can see code doesn't mean it's open source

>>100181213
It's already open source, just not FOSS

>>100182508
>>ignoring the multiple Windows leaks that have happened over the years
Leaks are not FOSS, using leaked Windows code in your project will get you into deep legal shit. Some projects like Wine will literally ban you from contributing if you admit to having read leaked Windows source code.

>>100182508
Leaks are useless, if you do anything with them you'll be sued to oblivion
>inb4 muh clean room
Then the patents get you. The Jews always win

>>100182561
anyone smart enough to actually use it for shit is smart enough to not just directly copy it

>>100182516
Source available != Open source

>>100181159
>MS-DOS 4.0 (multitasking) and MS-DOS 4.1 – A separate branch of development with additional multitasking features, released between 3.2 and 3.3, and later abandoned. It is unrelated to any later versions, including versions 4.00 and 4.01 listed below
It's useless, they should release 6.22.

>>100183842
6.22 is allegedly in the works

>Assembly 84.9%
>C 13.2%
>Pascal 0.6%
>C++ 0.4%
based

>>100181215
>FreeDOS is already more optimized than this microshit slop
>>100181192
freedos has such poor hardware support that it's practically unusable with a tonne of old PC hardware. nothing will ever make freedos good - ever.

>>100183842
this is the only version of ms-dos that actually matters.

>>100181159
>so please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files
How long until Rakesh starts fucking with historical software?

>>100183842
>>I wonder if they plan to share the sources of 3.3 and 5.0 versions of MS-DOS, the most used versions of the most used OS of computing history
>Realistically, I am sure they exist, but they also likely contain 3rd party licensed code for which we do not have rights of distribution.
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/issues/424#issuecomment-542437019

>>100181159
yes but does it have Nigger licensing? I was told that's important

>>100182902
https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2024/04/25/open-sourcing-ms-dos-4-0/

faggot

>>100181159
but can it run doom?

File: han_confus.png (72 KB, 302x260)

72 KB PNG

>>100181159
>MS-DOS 4.0


This is just legacy support right?

>>100182035
>Who the hell is using MS-DOS for anything these days?
Old machines which they don't want to reinstall the system on.
Things like train systems from 1988.

>>100182215
I doubt they released Windows ME (MS-DOS 8.0) as open source.

Just release the 5.0 source, 6.x is mostly just bloat over it, except the boot menu is quite useful..

>>100182152
DOS has its own interrupt table.

>>100183911
C was, from memory, not ready in the early 80s.
Neither was C++.
So it was a bit of a risk. They updated C in the late 80s (ANSI C?) and C++ in like 1998.

So that's interesting. MS were really living recklessly back then.

File: apoligize.png (21 KB, 530x120)

21 KB PNG

>>100184910
kek

>>100185302
so much sovl

Finally a good open source os.

Open source windows 7 you pussies.

File: reimu_sad.jpg (43 KB, 540x540)

43 KB JPG

Dos 3.33 when?
That was the best one for PC/XT systems

>>100182176
>If MS open-sourced an old version of NT Windows
man I wish, that would literally be the end of Unix

Imagine if Windows 8 is open sourced.
>"redeem this pointer sirs"
>IF ELSE IF ELSE IF ELSE
>SWITCH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE CASW CASE
>unintelligible Hindi texts

>>100181159
>please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files
kek

>>100185302
>>100186250

>>100185302
>/*******************END OF SPECIFICATIONS*******************/

>>100186250
What's wrong with switch/cases?

>>100187486
Because if you're paid to code for planned obsolescence with the excuse of backward compatibility, the least thing you can do is to make your code clean and effortlessly readable.

File: Screenshot_20240426_140254.png (55 KB, 714x440)

55 KB PNG

>>100185302
What C standard is this? T. zoomer

>>100187738
K&R, written by a Pascalfag.
You used to have to specify argument types under the declaration but before its block. (You still can, but why would you?)
Also, technically the `int argc;` is unnecessary, because in K&R function definitions if you don't specify a type it defaults to int.

There used to be a joke about Pascal devs, that they will write Pascal no matter the language, hence the BEGINs. There'll be a block of #defines at the top of that file.

> not using IBM DOS 2000
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS
https://winworldpc.com/product/pc-dos/2000
It's just better MSDOS.

>>100181915
yes, decades ago.
I remember downloading the DOS6 and Win95 src back in 2000 or so..

>>100181159
Nice, now open source Windows 7 please.

>>100186189
if only the NT kernel is way ahead of anything unix, if we could strap a more usefull userspace it will be fantastic.
but realistically it will only be another plan9. no one doubts that is better but that is it

why was the other dos 4.0 thread deleted...?

>>100184755
What's your point? I know they open sourced it.

>>100190831
this isn't /v/
you don't need 12 threads to discuss one thing
use the catalog next time

File: maxresdefault-3549978030.jpg (44 KB, 1280x720)

44 KB JPG

>>100185302
>>100187461
END OF SPECIFICATIONS
SPECIFICATIONS END HERE

>>100182035
At my old job at a pizza place the ordering system for takeout, delivery and some accounting was done in a DOS program called STAS. I doubt they changed it because it just werks.

File: th-3680708836.jpg (39 KB, 474x385)

39 KB JPG

>>100190988
This is the same reason why PC/104 exists. I just wish the boards were chink levels of cheap and were more popular.

>>100181230
1.0 doesn't mean shit dude, what you're looking for in software is stable API/ABI

File: DotCom.jpg (6 KB, 248x250)

6 KB JPG

>>100181159
How does FreeDOS compare to this? Is it closer to 6.22?

#define BEGIN     {
#define END       }

lmao based

Anyone find code by gates?

>>100191371
That's how you know a PascalCHAD wrote it.

File: 705ff81fbe63a22fb190a394e(...).png (48 KB, 1024x1024)

48 KB PNG

>>100181159
>releases this in the same week of CP/M's 50th anniversary
I see Microsoft has not forgotten yet.

>>100191512
kek
they know exactly what they're doing.

>>100181763
>from the POV of a 5150
The original IBM PC was a dogshit microcomputer even by the standard of its era. It was so bad not even IBM and Microsoft supported it beyond DOS 2.0

File: FunnyFrijole.jpg (35 KB, 600x600)

35 KB JPG

>>100191614
5150? So crazy it just might work.

>>100182035
It's useful for BIOS updates on older machines.

>>100181215
Is it? Freedos is nearly all turbo/watcom C. It’s a very neat OS and I’d highly recommend reading the source since it’s a nice little adventure but it’s probably not very lightweight.

>>100187738
Knuth style.

guy mentioned in the post says there's plans to eventually work up all the way to windows 3.0, maybe 3.1

>>100192635
Hope they release win 95

>>100192635
>eventually
wow, it's literally nothing

>>100185302
Based and soul

File: file.png (854 KB, 1050x593)

854 KB PNG

Good accurate emulator to play around with.

https://github.com/dbalsom/martypc

>>100182035
Very fucking expensive CNC equipment that's not networked and highly unprofitable to change since it needs no changes. If your machine make thousands of dollars a week all downtime not required for mechanical repair or maintenance is money down the shitter.

File: 1714164829883.png (121 KB, 716x711)

121 KB PNG

>>100192635
Would be fun, I've always loved Windows 3.x for some reason
>mfw Microsoft open-sources old shit all the time but OS/2 is still proprietary

>>100194418
IBM owns it, not Microsoft

>>100192635
So if they do open source Windows 3.1, what could people actually do with it?

>>100187802
>hence the BEGINs.
You can do that in C?

>>100194538

>>100191371

>>100194490
Nothing. It's a dead end fit for hobbyists.

>>100194449
Microsoft owns at least part of it

>>100194556
Neato, so fucking neato that we need to bring back Pascal.

>>100194571
Well what could hobbyists do with it?

>>100194746
Hobby stuff. Give LGR and 8bit some more retro fapping material.

Haha freedos is gonna die now I’m glad cause they’re coc blm ukraine trannies

>>100194966
brown

File: file.png (18 KB, 486x380)

18 KB PNG

>>100194584
based

>>100192635
Source? Great if true. It could finally lead to a standalone DOSBox-like Win3x emu.

File: file.png (11 KB, 713x79)

11 KB PNG

>>100195082
source is talking directly to the guy in the blogpost

>>100195082
86Box?

>>100195223
DOSBox isn't a whole pc

>>100195142
Link?

>>100182176
>If MS open-sourced an old version of NT Windows, though, that would be a gold mine, which is why MS will never do it.
Won't happen. With a release like that, you'd discover NT was stolen from DEC.

>>100195482
it's on a discord server

>>100195512
OK.

>>100195492
We already have the leaked XP source code, tho. If true, there would have been a lawsuit already.

>>100195566
a lawsuit from who? DEC shut down decades ago

>>100187606
unless you're retarded, there will be cases where you may need to have several conditionals one after the other, and you're just going to need to figure out how to pass cs101 ofyou want to read it

>>100188592
> I remember downloading the [...] Win95 src back in 2000 or so..
big if true, you still have that??

>>100195602
There's always a successor-in-interest.

File: oof.png (166 KB, 923x355)

166 KB PNG

>>100184374
>https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/issues/424#issuecomment-542437019
???

>>100195900
>they removed the issues page
oh no no no no no no

>>100195900
Try with the Wayback Machine.

It's a pity how Classic Mac OS will never be open-source.

>>100185302
Why can't modern day programmers be this humble?

Why isn't Microsoft Word 1.0 open-source yet? It was released along the original OSS MS-DOS releases, but they never assigned a free software license like they did with MS-DOS later.

>>100196122
highly doubt apple cares about anyone doing stuff with system 7 anymore

>>100196133
>original non-OSS MS-DOS releases

File: 1714174109073.png (30 KB, 909x219)

30 KB PNG

>>100195900
They can just release the parts they own. Worked for illumos

>>100196140
Even a FS Lisa was too much for them.

>>100196153
There's no actual use for partial DOS source code. I can see why they would want to wait for a potential release of the whole thing.

Now that AIX is in pajeet hell, release the sauce, IBM.

>>100195512
UGH. Invite?

>>100194418
OS/2 will never be open sourced because IBM makes bank at licensing it to third party companies. See eComStation and ArcaOS.

>>100183842
>It's useless, they should release 6.22.
I hope they release MS-DOS 7.1. I know that was coupled with Windows 95, but you technically could use it as a standalone version with some tweaks, and it was the "definitive edition" of Microsoft DOS in terms of features and compatibility.
And yes, I know about MS-DOS 8.0 (Millenium), but Microsoft basically crippled it in a weird way that you couldn't really use it uncoupled from Win32 and if even if you tried to do it, it didn't work with a lot of legacy software.

File: 1711787927986652.png (42 KB, 1301x137)

42 KB PNG

They haven't changed this string in 40 years. I wonder if the .bat parser is still using the same code.

File: sddefault.jpg (52 KB, 640x480)

52 KB JPG

>>100181763
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOVLlMQs9f8

>>100197104
Did you watch the video? He had to debloat the thing before he could install it.

>>100196572
>I wonder if the .bat parser is still using the same code.
i usually see this message when i finish beating my meat and want to stop using stable diffusion to generate godless images. what a time to be alive

>>100197185
I'm sure we needed to know this

>>100197127
Yes, he did a debloat of applications like games, extra languages, extra drivers and documentation. Things that was not a norm at the time, considering the first DOS was single-language, documentation 100% on printed manuals, just with the right drivers per model and basically 0 extra software outside the main utilites.

>>100196153
translation: he can't show the blocks of code from glowniggers.

>>100197398
BINGO!

>>100195838
no idea, doubt it
I still have my backup CDs and what not from the 90s/00s, but I have no idea if ever included those pieces
might still also be on some of the old disconnected IDE harddrives laying around, I have no idea lel

>>100195838
>>100198153
I first saw it on neworder.box.sk or one of the affiliate sites back in the day, iirc

>>100191371
why

>>100194966
"Utrannies" was right there anon

>>100196122
>Classic Mac OS
I have read once that classic Mac OS is even more of a legal minefield than DOS or OS/2 systems.

>>100181262
Microsoft usually goes with that license for their projects.

>>100201260
Yeah, but the amazing thing is they didn't really withhold anything. Everything except himem, dosshell, gwbasic, and parts of xmaem/xma2ems is there and they all have modern equivalents in FreeDOS. This will at least be able to get tracked down and fixed any of the issues FreeDOS has had with discs and networking which was introduced in DOS3 which wasn't open sourced. You can also see the multitasking implementation and the remaining bugs with trying to run Windows 3.11 with FreeDOS can probably be finally solved.

>>100191305
>How does FreeDOS compare to this? Is it closer to 6.22?
FreeDOS is nowhere near as good or reliable, which is very unfortunate. PC fags running old hardware still need and use real ms-dos

>>100183911
rustsisters...

>>100192635
>we'll live to see w98 with modern systems support
another L for linux in the long run

>>100197398
>glowniggers
>on a single-user os with no native networking
take your meds

>>100195492
everyone already knows that

>>100202116
Well, wouldn't this open-source release fix that finally? It's MIT licensed while FreeDOS is GPL v2, so the FreeDOS devs can just grab whatever they need that isn't working with their own implementation without worrying about any licensing issues.

how do you even compile it. Explain it like to someone who liked MS-DOS as a gaming platform instead of coding platform.
>>100199566
{} are gay that is why

>>100201463
Eh, not like Microsoft has anything to gain in keeping DOS code a secret. They don't give support to those systems anymore, and they probably would want something like FreeDOS becoming 100 functional just to not have to thinker with those systems anymore.

>>100195492
>you'd discover NT was stolen from DEC
But that's not true. For starters, NT was written in C, while VMS was written in some weird DEC exclusive language but forgot which one.

>>100206503
he thinks it was stolen just because a lot of the people who worked on VMS also worked on NT after quitting from DEC

>>100202359
98 can run fine on most modern systems

I love it when programmers shitpost in the comments. Makes the code not so boring and reminds us it's made by humans.

>>100207717
The majority of Win32 OS can, the main problem is the old BIOS compatibility.

>>100210119
Ryzens also don't like it

>>100208598
seeing the comments is always great

>>100185302
why were people so much more human back then?

>>100184755
His point is the fact the code leaked earlier does not imply you can legally use it. Until now.

>>100210356
had to actually go outside and participate in society

>>100210440
we have to go back

>>100208598
Any N bombs in the comments or did they scrub them out

File: 1674844799054.jpg (33 KB, 660x329)

33 KB JPG

>>100211860

No modern OS uses read mode and BIOS. This is just history.

>>100212110
this is from yandex source code

>>100212142
read -> real

>>100212142
Conserving history properly is a good thing

>>100212110
Hol up, this is a bash script

>>100212142
>all x86 CPUs start in real mode when reset

>>100182035
People in 1000 years.
>The source code is considered lost. All that remains are artifacted screenshots from the earliest days of the so-called "internet"
No, you sure could care less about this, but Microsoft actually has those kind of "reponsibilities" to humanity.
They kinda were at the forefront of the digital age
>inb4 some boomer starts talking about Bell Labs
Yeah, yeah, we get it gramps, the golden age of the video game era was the 80s, okaaaay.
You probably aren't aware whatever country you live in runs archives to keep track of history.
You probably just forget everything and drool.

>>100212187
Intel actually wants to get rid of that with the supposed X86S architecture.

>>100212285
>You probably aren't aware whatever country you live in runs archives to keep track of history.
lol, you can't imagine the amount of software that was lost in time thanks to mismanagement or simply disinterest. Hell, Microsoft themselves have lost a lot of source code along the years.

>>100181189
I look and say that

Conserving history is good,
but using that code is bad.

>>100181159
>msdos 4.0
>mit
>we can fork/ do clean room implementations of 5.0 feaures/ fix bugs in dos that is new enough to work with win 3.1
>we can even start porting new software like neovim and have it behave better for newer multicore chipsets
My old ass winxp thinkpad could retire into being a nice win 3.1 device with a Foss base

>>100212354
Get rid of the ME first, then start butchering the actual CPU.

>>100213599
see >>100183842

>>100214545
kys racist

>>100215126
he's right, though

>>100187738
This is pure, pre-standard, 1980s style AT&T K&R C. The NEXT computer stuff looks like this too. It is actually jarring to look at.

>>100215126
He's right, though.

>>100214545
>I don't really think you appreciate just how fucking bad Indians are. They are as evil as niggers, amoral, vile and also stupid. They cannot be humble, they are difficult to educate, they are combative, idiotic and worst of all dishonest liars and cheaters.
This is so true that it hurts. It has taken me a few years in my career to understand that "yes" actually means "no" when asked a question such as "do you understand". They then poo all over the code, which gets merged into the mainline.

>>100208598
I've tried doing this at $job, however I got pooed on (literally lmfao) in code review for having "Whoever is reading this, please forgive me", as it wasn't "professional"
Lmfao

>>100213599
wait for 6, guy says it's planned eventually

>>100190963
kek

>>100208598
Don't worry, AI will automate that too

>>100219661
lmao, imagine AIs shitting the code on purpose just to spit their human masters

>>100212626
Yeah, but most of that software was probably trivial, like pulp fiction books lost to time.
Hell, even the author doesn't really care, and all the people who have irrational sentimental memories to subpar work will die and so will there memories of it, meaning it is, in fact, trivial.
But there certainly was also good software among it, probably and unfortunately, you're not wrong.

As much as I dislike Microsoft from a freedom point of view, when you view the whole thing in macroscopic aspects, MS-DOS is very a relevant piece of history and every bit of documentation and code and everything about it must be preserved.
Including even a few original hardware pieces, but that is the job of a government archiver or an institution.
Even if you are biollionaire, you or your heirs may go broke and you may have only archived it for 80 years.

This is the beginning of the age of permanent archiving.
Digitalization (Digitization?), and the technology to run it, have made it possible for the first time.
We are arguing whether or not people built monumental structures some puny 10,000 years ago, while world is 4.5 billion years old, because we have no records and all the technology to make records decay, and much like artifacts in a jpeg, everytime you update it, people bias history and stories for exaggeration, etc., etc.

You think electricians are underappreciated?
Digitalization is to most techies what electricity is to normies, they always take it for granted.
And hashes, of course, in addition to that.
Reliable computer networking would be very cumbersome without CRC/hashing.

File: 1706330937355958.jpg (20 KB, 498x498)

20 KB JPG

>>100220879
I mean if there ever are space-faring humans, you can show them the middle-finger by presenting them a pristine account of your time.
I mean, you could literally show them a 100 mexapixel image of your middle-finger and they'd be seeing it in the exact clarity just like today.
Of course, they might have 3D imagery and holograms by then, but the point still stands.
You can already get that feeling when you view images made in the 90s/2000s.
It's surreal to think how it would be later.

I gotta carefully craft out the image from a frame with a picture of my grandparents, it's from the 1930s, to make a high quality scan of it, because that is probably going to be the only image of them that has a chance of living forever.

>>100221188
Cloud services might notice you downloading all your data because you want to terminate their services, and shove bullshit reasons and hold you hostage with your data.
Never make the mistake of trusting one in the first place.

With Microsoft doubling as a cloud provider and no attempt at strictly separating OS from cloud or at the very minimum making it possible, they are inherently no longer trustworthy.

>>100221487
>With Microsoft doubling as a cloud provider and no attempt at strictly separating OS from cloud or at the very minimum making it possible
the fuck are you trying to say here

>>100221537
I don't know, I saw OneCloud(TM) or something like that plastered everywhere in Windows Explorer, in the brief time I had it as my OS on the laptop.

It's like, some dev at Michaelsoft might make a mistake and when you start syncing gigabytes your data with "the cloud" it might just finish in one second, for, ehem, "reasons unknown", but the data is, in fact, there in the cloud.
You can call it far-fetched, sure, but it is most definitely not as far-fetched as cosmic rays flipping bits, and that happens.

It's less work for me to just deal with archiving my own data myself.
If I use a third party for this, I want legal guarantees, but this is macroscopically bleeding edge technology, and legal and politlcal is always old and two steps behind.

I am, unironically, hoping for some government-provided 100MB of permanent archive space or something.
I may not have kids, but there are actually others and kids out there who share the same (great) grandparents of that photo I mentioned.
That would be something I'd store in those 100MB.

>>100221696
nobody's forcing you to use onedrive

>>100221696
The US, under an assumption it has 400 million people and everyone uses this, would require ca. 38,200 TiB for this, or 38 Exbibytes, or 40 Exabytes.
Doable, with modern day tech.

>>100221720
Not yet! And once you have, I mentioned here >>100221487 the risks once using one.
First it starts with integration of online accounts.
Then it goes on by hiding offline accounts when a network is detected during install.
And so on, and so forth.
If you are blind to the patterns of dark patterns Microsoft has gradually been impkementing the past decade, you are either very not smart or one of their shills.
Now, begone.

>>100221746
I mean, duh, it's just asking the government paying to operate one data center for the public.
Feasibility, as if tech didn't already have the capacity to store 100MB of data for everyone nowadays, lol.
Yeah, it just highlights how far behind it all is, in a societal, legal and governmental context.

>>100206503
>VMS was written in some weird DEC exclusive language
VAX macro (assembly) and DCL scripts. But at some point it was found that a lot of the old VAX code was unworkable due to missing documentation or bit rot. A VSI engineer who was doing the x86_64 port talked about it in a video presentation a few years ago.

>>100221783
if i was a shill i'd be screeching about windows 11 and shit, retard

>>100189316
>more usefull userspace
What's wrong with Windows userspace? If we could adapt Wine to an open sourced NT kernel, we could have non-shit Windows

>>100222076
>what is ReactOS

>>100221962
only about 3tb total in the US, thought it'd be more

>>100222083
A meme

>>100222076
>What's wrong with Windows userspace?
The ABIs (backwards compatible binary interfaces) are great but this model shifts too much responsibility to the programmer. Using Windows APIs is a miserable experience. I would rather program for nearly any other semi-modern OS.

>>100222096

300,000,000 people * 100 megabytes/person
 = 30,000,000,000 megabytes
 = 30,000,000 gigabytes
 = 30,000 terabytes
 = 30 exabytes

Thirty thousand terabytes.
Plus redundancy, etc, etc.
It's not quite that trivial, but it's not too much to ask, either.

>>100222290
why would it be 300k * 100, that shit makes no sense

File: file.png (4 KB, 203x77)

4 KB PNG

>>100222290

>>100222352
The population of the US is 330 million people last I checked, some round it down to 300 million, some up to 400 million, for estimating the cumulative storage cost of providing every person in the US with 100 megabytes of digital storage space.

>>100222376
>>100222402

>>100192653
Probably won't because 95 had Win32

how will this affect dosbox

>>100222868
That one game that had that one quirk no one could explain might finally get an explanation.

>>100192653
>>100222469
They could release DOS 7.1 without the Win32 stuff.

>>100181159
>already censoring the comments
kek

>>100223136
Which one?

>>100222469
Windows 95 still has a subset of NT's Win32, Win95 was basically a beefed up Windows 3.x with "32 bit" libraries strapped onto it to claim they had a "consumer" 32-bit OS and take sales from OS/2 (it worked)

>>100226217
Windows 95 was a 32-bit OS, so it used the native Win32 API. You are thinking of Windows 3.1. which was the one with the Win32 subset.

>>100226217
you've somehow fused nt 3.51 and windows 3.1 and then confused it as windows 95

Based freedosfags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r76V_gWQ8

File: 1683639443384150.png (1.08 MB, 692x1100)

1.08 MB PNG

>>100181159
>All files within this repo are released under the MIT License as per the LICENSE file stored in the root of this repo.
Holy fucking based

>>100226193
My comment was meant in a generic way, I'm sure there are cases out there.

The Master was explaining the nature of Tao to one of his novices.

"The Tao is embodied in all software -- regardless of how insignificant," said the Master.

"Is the Tao in a hand-held calculator?" asked the novice.

"It is," came the reply.

"Is the Tao in a video game?" asked the novice.

"It is even in a video game," said the Master.

"Is the Tao in the DOS for a personal computer?" asked the novice.

The Master coughed and shifted his position slightly. "The lesson is over for today," he said.

>>100222868
I suppose it doesn't affect it, given that DosBox is no longer in development

>>100226656
kek nice one

>>100226680
>what is DOSBox-X

>>100181159
obsolete shitware doe

>>100182225
>>100188710
>>100226766
this

DOS bros, we are so back. Only a few more years until 6.22 is released too.

>>100222469
I'm pretty sure Wine already covers 100% of the Win32 API implemented in Windows 95 (and the extended Win16 API). The 32-bit VMM shouldn't be hard to implement either. There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from coding a 100% functional Windows 95 clone right now

>>100226628
That's Microsoft's standard license, doe.

>>100226680
>>100226710
There is also another popular fork but forgot the name.

>>100229640
DOSBox-Staging?

File: ncxuBL2[1].png (76 KB, 1280x640)

76 KB PNG

>>100229767
Yeah, that's the one. Ironically, I found a third one when I was checking about those.

>>100226710
I tried to use that for PC98, but I couldn't get it to work

>>100212110
kek

File: computer-chronicles-matri(...).jpg (1002 KB, 1200x1800)

1002 KB JPG

>>100191512
Time for a computer chronicles marathon

>>100194584
But why?

>>100196382
OS/2 had software?

>>100201260
didn't they release windows 1.0 source without a license?

>>100232915
Not him. No.

>>100201260
I think they originally released the DOS source code under a license that didn't allow people to use it, and it was part of some software museum website. It's great that they released it as MIT eventually.

>>100233109
That was MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 (2014 - 2018). 4.00 was never released under a source-available license.

File: 1699907756850271.png (37 KB, 728x538)

37 KB PNG

>>100233323
Yes, I know it was 2 of the old versions. This is the firs time 4.0 was released.

This reminds me how it turned out there is a Microchad who internally maintained FileManager from Windows 3.1 throughout the years, and recently they released it as open source: https://github.com/microsoft/winfile
It even runs on Windows 10. It's fun when they release stuff like these.

>>100233387
>2024-6
>recently

>>100233429
That was literally 1.5 months ago

>>100233448
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17214586/microsoft-windows-file-manager-windows-10-app-download

>>100233461
>2018
Ok, then 9 months ago, no big difference

>>100181159
They should have done it long ago since they pulled from qDOS. Too late to matter to be honest.

>>100222352
american education

>>100222013
>A VSI engineer who was doing the x86_64 port
Man, what a tragedy what happened to OpenVMS. It finally had a x86 port after all these years, and HP was already starting to give hobbyist licenses to anyone who wanted to tinker with it. Then, and after a few months, they revoked the licenses for some unknown reasons.

it seems nobody of you can compile it or do any meaningful alternations to it.
>i must lurk source code
this is why its closed anyway.

>>100235578
>it seems nobody of you can compile it
You can

>>100235578
>or do any meaningful alternations to it
There are already people who are trying to fix some things in the original source code.
https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/message/58765259

So, when can we expect a 64 bit DOS?

>>100230184
>>100229767
never heard of either

>>100233387
wow, cool

>>100235478
>HP was already starting to give hobbyist licenses to anyone who wanted to tinker with it. Then, and after a few months, they revoked the licenses for some unknown reasons.
I didn't hear about that but HPE management have a well earned reputation for being obtuse. The people over at VSI were extremely professional and easy to work with. They still give out free (one year long?) license PAKs to anyone who wants them for non-commercial research or hobbyist use.

The rub is that when they negotiated with HPE to spin off VMS development they were only able to license products built for specific architectures; Alpha, Itanium, and Intel x86_64. VAX licensing is off the table now because they'd be contractually obligated to support it but can't because the VAX source and tooling was reportedly too damaged. So for a real VAX or SimH running 7.3 just look up LMFGEN.EXE (for MS Wingdings) and you can generate a lifetime license PAK for Ken Olsen.

>>100232368
No but it had fanboys, just like Linux today

>>100236057
It would feel nothing like DOS thoughever

>>100239123
Somebody explain the "thougheverbeit" thing to me

>>100239514
it's just nonsense shitposter lingo

>>100181159
benis

>>100239514
i'm not sure where it's from, but i think it comes originally from people making fun of people who use "though" too much, which has since corrupted in typical internet fashion to more absurd forms (combining parts of similarly used words like "however", "albiet", etc)

>>100236057
I remember reading there was a FreeDOS x64 version there, but it was probably not an official version and just some amateur fork.

>>100202116
>FreeDOS is nowhere near as good or reliable
It is good but it's "unreliable" just because it's impossible to know the many exceptions and fuckery DOS had to make over the years and that FreeDOS has to copy.

>>100239514
A mexican /int/ poster who can't understand the word.

>>100243450
things like wine and libreoffice have similar problems, they are implementing things whose standards are the implementations
like microsoft office's office open xml format (as in .docx/.xlsx/etc) is technically an open format, however, since microsoft office is the defacto implementation, and it doesn't follow the standard properly, what things like libreoffice really need to target is what microsoft office does
wine too, regardless of what any documentation says any component should do, it has to copy exactly what windows actually does, including bugs and intentional application hacks (yes, windows is full of per-application hacks to keep old stuff working)

>>100243910
Yeah, and specifically in MS-DOS, they basically had to change how some things worked just to cripple DR-DOS just because that OS was becoming a better DOS than MS-DOS.

>>100183942
>freedos has such poor hardware support that it's practically unusable with a tonne of old PC hardware. nothing will ever make freedos good - ever.
works on my machine

>>100181189
Literally me

>>100208598
That's anti-semitic.

>>100235578
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r76V_gWQ8

>>100181189

>>100232368
More than Troonix ever will.

>>100247710
But what would you build MS-DOS for when you can use FreeDOS?

File: 1574190814403.jpg (347 KB, 1472x1984)

347 KB JPG

>>100181159
>microsoft open sources a 35 year-old real mode os that's widely regarded as one of the worst versions of ms-dos
>more interest and engagement than the entire foss community gets in a year
Yet another demonstration of how a single line of Microsoft code is worth a billion FOSSshit LOC.

>>100195492
>multiple nt source leaks
>dec (later compaq, later again hp) never brings suit
I'll bet this fantasy sounded better in your head.

>>100252100
Because people still love DOS. Hell, even some zoomers do thanks to all nostalgia memes that have been popular since a few years.

>>100253047
Zoomers love and fetishise everything they weren't around for. It's an important part of their victim complex of "boomers are trying to keep all the good stuff from me reeeeeeeee".
As someone who had to deal with DOS daily for a decade, I was glad to see the back of the fucking thing.

>>100250241
Because it's fun.

>>100253094
what didn't you like about it?

>>100254006
>no security whatsoever
>shitty API
>nearly useless command line
>filesystem limited to 2GB

>>100254006
Being a real mode OS without plug and play, any sort of hardware variation made for an absolute nightmare. Today, you get a yellow exclamation mark in a device management applet - back then, it was a system hang or reboot. The boot menu introduced in MS-DOS 6.0 to bypass CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT was a fucking lifesaver - up until then, in came the boot disk and hope you could figure it out.

Another one was memory - again, real mode OS: this program wants lots of conventional (aka low) memory, so let's boot out some TSRs... oops, we need the network card driver, LSL and IPXODI or the network won't run, but they gobble up 50KB conventional memory, and the ODI driver is a fucking special snowflake that won't let you load high without crashing (or worse, corrupting every 1000th packet - try diagnosing that when Wireshark was a decade away). Oh shit, this program wants extended (or is it expanded?) memory... nope, expanded memory, time to load EMM386... shit we're using MS-DOS 5.0, there's no boot menu, we need a boot floppy for custom memory configurations... OK, let's try QEMM - hey that works, and we have loads of conventional memory too, yay... what do you mean they won't spring for a site license? Fuck me, I need a drink.

OK, now let's configure these DOS apps for graphics mode - ahh here we are, Tseng Labs Super VGA, yay, now this one's a S3... oh hang on, no built-in support for it, maybe it's on the disk... fuck, it's an ACADR11 driver, we need R12, who bought this machine? All right, let's chase down another Tseng Labs card....

... Jesus anon, you look like shit. Aren't you like only 25? Why are you going gray and drinking so much at your age?

Suffice it to say kids, there's a reason Windows 9x (and then NT) absolutely took over the world in the space of 7 years.

>>100254193
fwiw I love reading this stuff

http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles

>>100254193
>Being a real mode OS without plug and play
Yeah, there is a reason why it was called "Plug and Pray" in those times. It was a toss coin if something worked or not.

>Suffice it to say kids, there's a reason Windows 9x (and then NT) absolutely took over the world in the space of 7 years.
And a reason why a lot of people preferred to use Mac or Amiga. I mean, those had their issues as well, but not at the level of DOS. Well, there was also your average UNIX system, but usually only wizards used those.

>>100254405
This was before plug and pray, anon. Good old fashioned jumpers or DIP switches, and adding /ADDRESS=300 to lines in CONFIG.SYS. The issue was so much variation in hardware - this was also the days before buying 100 absolutely identical clone boxes that you could just burp an identical C:\DRIVERS directory, CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT onto - you bought hardware as needed, even if you were a big company.

Everyone's spoiled now: no matter the machine, it consists of (probably) open computer, plug in hardware, (probably) close computer, boot up, and run INSTALL_DRIVER.EXE - and that's the HARDEST way to do it.

>>100254405
Tbf PC hardware at the time was utter shit too, even the "high-end" stuff. Things only improved after Intel and AMD banned everyone else from making chipsets for them

>>100253094
DOS is sovlful. That's all that matters.

>>100255556
You tried.
You failed, but you tried.
Btw I hear smearing yourself with catfood and jumping into tiger cages is pretty sovlful too.

>>100236057
We have TempleOS for that.

>>100235478
>hobbyist licenses
What in tardation is this? lmao just install the fucking thing and move on with your life.

>>100255612
Didn't ask

>>100257640
Yeah you did. Offering your opinion unbidden is by definition asking for everyone else's opinion.
The only "people" who disagree are leftists and small children (but I repeat myself).

>>100257098
Based retard

>>100257005
That's 64 bit Commodore OS

>>100236057
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0uE_chSnV8

>>100222290
>100 megabytes/person
Man, I hate this. Bytes should be multiple of 2, not 10.

>>100259121
Metric prefixes are multiples of 10, deal with it.

>>100184876
>6.x is mostly just bloat
6.22 is the epitome of DOS, though

>>100261410
Nope, that's MS-DOS 7.1 scraped from Win98SE. But on the other hand, you do have to lift plenty of COMs and EXEs from 6.22 (and SETVER the shit out of them) to have the "full-fat" DOS experience.

>>100260501
Not in computer science

>>100261540
>MS-DOS 7.1
why not 8 from ME? serious question, i knew you need to hack it to have again real mode, but other than that i dunno why not

>>100263282
Probably just because most people who know about ME these days also know how problematic it turned out to be and simply don't want to consider it based on that