OT: MDDOS 7.1 ???

if I had to guess, they probably took the DOS files from the win9x distribution and made an independent install set for them.... most certainly this is not a distribution from microsoft since they have been trying to bury standalone DOS for some time. I wouldn't use it in an embedded system though for legal reasons... unless the author can assure me there is no microsoft code involved and their independent license allows it.

David

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:28:47 -0600, hamilton wrote in comp.arch.embedded:

MS-DOS 7.0 is the version that was included with the original release of Windows 95. MS-DOS 7.1 was included with was alternately called the Win95B or OSR2 of Windows 95, and also with all versions of Windows 98. If I remember correctly, and I am not sure I do, 7.1 was also the MS-DOS included with Windows ME, which generally only shows up when you make a boot disk.

7.1 supports FAT32 drives, 7.0 does not. Neither version supports long file names in an MS-DOS environment. Both can support long file names in virtual DOS machines under Windows. command.com does automatically, and DOS programs can be written to use some new interrupt functions, but the LFN support of those functions is not in DOS itself, so only available when Windows is running and takes over file management from DOS calls.

The web page you referenced seems to state that the 'MS-DOS 7.1' distributed there supports LFNs directly, and the real Microsoft version most certainly does not. It also implies that it can read and write NTFS partitions, which real DOS 7.1 most definitely can't.

Also, even if Microsoft released MS-DOS 7.1 for free download, I can't believe that they would allow it to be distributed from third-party web sites and without licensing agreements. There is no download of MS-DOS 7.1 available on Microsoft's web site that I can find.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

There is this GPL'd alternative

--
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

If you want ansewrs from those who have used it and tested it, post your question to alt.msdos. comp.arch.embedded users tend to shy away from things that could get them and their employers sued.

(Yes, it is lifted from the DOS in Windows 98SE, but with patches to restore various features disabled by Microsoft. The possibility exists, of course that there are other, nore sinister patches as well.)

Followups set.

"hamilton" schreef in bericht news:4183dcb5$1 snipped-for-privacy@omega.dimensional.com...

This is sort of a hack made by a clever Chinese person (or perhaps more than one)(as we all know, there are quite many of them on earth ;-)). I have read that it was not with permission of M$, but as they very politely thank M$ on their site, perhaps they don't care. The other reason might be that nobody in China (I mean the "police") will care about M$ copyrights so there may not be much they can do about it. Well, they can become very angry but that would not help much...

I have done some experimenting with it on an old laptop, but prefer 6.22 and FreeDOS, though the last one takes some "getting used to it".

Hoping to have been of help to You, I remain.

Sincerely, Rene

Yes, it does what it says, and it's very clever too.

However, if you want long filename support from a DOS floppy, I'd recommend Odi's LFN tools which work fine, are legal, and we know who the author is.

--
Dave Farrance

I had the same concern about licensing for something called 'MASM32' - someone had grabbed various microsoft stuff that is available in the DDKS and SDKS (such as MASM, linkers, help files) and packaged them together for download on his site. In my mind that is a clear violation of microsoft's licensing... they justified it by saying they had written to microsoft about it and microsoft didn't write back...

David

Interesting, David. When I set up my site for downloading MASM/ML, I only picked out Microsoft links for doing so. I didn't even point at other sites that _might_ illegally supply Microsoft's products. But I still got a letter from the Visual C++ Program Manager at Microsoft:

It incorrectly suggested that I was pointing to non-Microsoft sources (I do, now

-- but did not, then.)

In any case, I've no doubt that Microsoft knows about the MASM32 site. Since they were so determined to contact me regarding my site, which only referred to their sites for downloading MASM/ML, and to write a letter asking me to correct it in ways that would please them -- I would guess that they've weighed the idea regarding MASM32. I can't argue with their success at keeping it up and I'm almost dead certain that appropriate high-level attention at Microsoft has been attracted to it, as well.

Since it's still up and running, I'm baffled. But there it is.

Jon