It's also why I like MS-DOS Player for Win32/Win64 so you can run all of the commands on the native CLI as well.. But if it was back then, OS/2 was the way to go!
@@neozeed8139I like to make tiny new DOS commands to run in the 16 bit mode with the default segment size of 64 kb and with a segment size of 4 gb for DS, ES, FS and GS segment with A20 address gate open for writing into the linear framebuffer of a VBE 2/VBE 3 videomode of modern graphic cards.
PC DOS 4.00 was released in August 1988, around 7 or 8 months after the first (and quite buggy) version of OS/2, so it's possible IBM & Microsoft were using it to cross-compile from OS/2 with MSC 5.0. Though not everyone would've had machines capable of running it, and I suspect the devs would've just been working on their own part(s) of the project and not continuously building the entire thing. From what I understand Microsoft used Xenix for the early stages of OS/2 development, before it became self-hosting. And Microsoft used OS/2 1.3 for the early development of Windows NT. Worth noting that OS/2 1.x emulation was built into NT very early on, probably partly to satisfy some of their customers but probably also to provide Microsoft themselves with a quick way to use all their existing 16-bit OS/2 devtools, avoiding the headache of needing to port them all to 32-bit to a different API.
What'll really blow your socks off is FOOTBALL/PIGSKIN which are OS/2 betas from 1987 that have v86 mode! Don't forget that Windows/386 also is from 1987. One really has to wonder, like the 'hidden' Xenix email systems they had just how ahead was Microsoft with the 386/32bit curve? The OS/2 subsystem runs MSSQL 1.0 very well too I might add! Which reminds me the WLO (Windows Libraries for OS/2) shipped as part of the graphical admin tool for SQL, as it's a friendly Windows 3.0 application.
If you had source & time 1.0 was neat although it's more so disappointing that even a brand new $6,000 PS/2 Model 60 can't run it, as you need to upgrade the RAM.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
I am happy with DosBox MS DOS 5 that have file handle function. This make it much easier to work with files.
It's also why I like MS-DOS Player for Win32/Win64 so you can run all of the commands on the native CLI as well.. But if it was back then, OS/2 was the way to go!
@@neozeed8139I like to make tiny new DOS commands to run in the 16 bit mode with the default segment size of 64 kb and with a segment size of 4 gb for DS, ES, FS and GS segment with A20 address gate open for writing into the linear framebuffer of a VBE 2/VBE 3 videomode of modern graphic cards.
PC DOS 4.00 was released in August 1988, around 7 or 8 months after the first (and quite buggy) version of OS/2, so it's possible IBM & Microsoft were using it to cross-compile from OS/2 with MSC 5.0. Though not everyone would've had machines capable of running it, and I suspect the devs would've just been working on their own part(s) of the project and not continuously building the entire thing.
From what I understand Microsoft used Xenix for the early stages of OS/2 development, before it became self-hosting.
And Microsoft used OS/2 1.3 for the early development of Windows NT. Worth noting that OS/2 1.x emulation was built into NT very early on, probably partly to satisfy some of their customers but probably also to provide Microsoft themselves with a quick way to use all their existing 16-bit OS/2 devtools, avoiding the headache of needing to port them all to 32-bit to a different API.
What'll really blow your socks off is FOOTBALL/PIGSKIN which are OS/2 betas from 1987 that have v86 mode! Don't forget that Windows/386 also is from 1987. One really has to wonder, like the 'hidden' Xenix email systems they had just how ahead was Microsoft with the 386/32bit curve?
The OS/2 subsystem runs MSSQL 1.0 very well too I might add! Which reminds me the WLO (Windows Libraries for OS/2) shipped as part of the graphical admin tool for SQL, as it's a friendly Windows 3.0 application.
O used the original OS/2 at the time. Was amazing. You cold control the hardware behavior in another level.
If you had source & time 1.0 was neat although it's more so disappointing that even a brand new $6,000 PS/2 Model 60 can't run it, as you need to upgrade the RAM.
Compile MS-DOS 4 in DOSBox?
Yeah. It's not as exciting as it sounds. But it absolutely works! th-cam.com/video/ZiT1lvXqUrQ/w-d-xo.html
Hi
Hi! Had a kitchen issue couldn’t make it
A streaming ? I don't understand what thing you couldn't made.
@@asanjuas the premier thing. but you know what it may be just as well to stream the nonsense im doing
@@neozeed8139 don't worry that's not a non se se even change the boot sector to print Booting... That is a things with a sense.