Re: DR LX

Re: DR LX
Re: Re: DR LX -- 8086	Post Reply	Top of the thread	Forum

Posted by: Liu
05/08/2006, 05:59:05

No, unfortunately DR LX is not free. My point is apparently building such things on DOS is not too difficult if the time is given for devlopment.

On the other hand, the DOS era itself would not be over as long as everything in its style is devloped to be able to run on modern systems, but even with that I have a feeling that the community might soon leave the Intel core and go to some more x86 compatible CPU.

Anyways, I agree that on modern systems the feeling is just not the same as with the machines in the late 80s and 90s. One key point that I want to stress is that the original ideal behind the x86 line is that they are SUPPOSED to be entirely backwards compatible.

Post Reply

Where am i? Original Post Top of the thread

Followups

THANKYOU --- 8086 ( 05/08/2006, 10:13:17 ) ( 178 bytes )
Re: DR LX --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/13/2006, 12:41:34 ) ( 225 bytes ) +1
- Re: DR LX --- Liu ( 05/14/2006, 18:05:13 ) ( 196 bytes ) +1
  - Re: DR LX --- lucho ( 05/14/2006, 18:35:41 ) ( 135 bytes ) +2
    - Re: DR LX Doesn't exist --- Liu ( 05/14/2006, 23:05:27 ) ( 141 bytes ) +1
      - Re: If DR-DOS Inc. doesn't exist, what about the OpenDOS licence? --- lucho ( 05/15/2006, 08:19:53 ) ( 88 bytes )
    - Re: DR LX --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/15/2006, 10:08:32 ) ( 293 bytes ) link +1
      - Re: DRLX --- lucho ( 05/15/2006, 12:11:32 ) ( 526 bytes ) +1
        
        If it exists, DRLX probably violates the GPL --- lucho ( 05/15/2006, 19:25:37 ) ( 226 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: If it exists, DRLX probably violates the GPL --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/15/2006, 21:34:49 ) ( 418 bytes ) +2
        
        Re: If it exists, DRLX probably violates the GPL --- Liu ( 05/16/2006, 06:05:22 ) ( 64 bytes )
        Re: If it exists, DRLX probably violates the GPL --- lucho ( 05/16/2006, 11:20:03 ) ( 684 bytes ) link +1
        
        Re: If it exists, DRLX probably violates the GPL --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/16/2006, 11:54:22 ) ( 575 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: If it exists, DR LX probably violates the GPL --- lucho ( 05/16/2006, 17:05:38 ) ( 366 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: If it exists, DR LX probably violates the GPL --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/16/2006, 17:40:01 ) ( 226 bytes ) link +1
        
        :-x Re: Solera Networks and DRDOS Inc. --- lucho ( 05/16/2006, 19:57:39 ) ( 621 bytes ) +2
        
        Re: Solera Networks and DRDOS Inc. --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/16/2006, 22:57:37 ) ( 870 bytes ) +2
        
        Re: What is DR LX? --- lucho ( 05/17/2006, 08:16:22 ) ( 28 bytes )
        Re: Solera Networks and DRDOS Inc. --- Liu ( 05/21/2006, 19:43:54 ) ( 356 bytes )
        
        Re: Solera Networks and DRDOS Inc. --- bttr ( 05/21/2006, 16:46:48 ) ( 42 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: DR LX --- Udo Kuhnt ( 05/21/2006, 19:27:13 ) ( 452 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: DR LX --- lucho ( 05/22/2006, 11:47:37 ) ( 43 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: DR LX --- 8086 ( 05/22/2006, 11:58:21 ) ( 329 bytes ) +2
        
        Re: DRLX --- lucho ( 05/22/2006, 17:49:31 ) ( 150 bytes )
        Re: DR LX --- Flo ( 05/22/2006, 19:45:25 ) ( 262 bytes ) +1
        
        :-x Re: DR DOS Incorporated --- lucho ( 06/13/2006, 17:42:33 ) ( 291 bytes ) +1
        
        Re: DR DOS, Inc. "virtualised" --- lucho ( 06/18/2006, 08:51:41 ) ( 93 bytes )

The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project