Question CLI (console) 64 bit DOS and Multiple Instances

[huffandy]

So, I know that Ubuntu and other linux(s) use multiple instances UNIX's Such as like.. Between CTRL-ALT-F1 is Graphical instance number 1 and CTRL-ALT-F2 is GUI #2. And for text, CTRL-ALT-F3 and plus. Is it possible to create a DOS version in this fashion? By assigning instances and allocate RAM according to each one? Is this superior than running a GUI and running straight instances from there?

Just curious...

 

[whm1974]

So, I know that Ubuntu and other linux(s) use multiple instances UNIX's Such as like.. Between CTRL-ALT-F1 is Graphical instance number 1 and CTRL-ALT-F2 is GUI #2. And for text, CTRL-ALT-F3 and plus. Is it possible to create a DOS version in this fashion? By assigning instances and allocate RAM according to each one? Is this superior than running a GUI and running straight instances from there?

Just curious...

Don't need a 64-Bit version of DOS. Just boot into the BSD/Linux command line and use whatever shell you want, such as BASH, zsh, fish, and etc.

 

[huffandy]

Thanks for the reply! But I getting interested in OS's. GUI shells take plenty of resources and I was thinking that a DOS (as a main OS) version which would run at the speed of light compared to Windows, MacOS and anything alike. I also see profitability to OLDER systems as well.

 

[huffandy]

I see profitabiliity in OLD systems. 1990's and Older.

 

[whm1974]

Thanks for the reply! But I getting interested in OS's. GUI shells take plenty of resources and I was thinking that a DOS version which would run at the speed of light compared to Windows, MacOS and anything alike.

You can run both Linux and BSD without a GUI just fun and both can be made lightening fast on modern hardware. Most Servers are actually used this way.

I see profitabiliity in OLD systems. 1990's and Older.

I don't. Unless they are something like late model maxed out Amiga and Atari systems. But other then that there isn't really a point.

 

[huffandy]

Oh, I see. They are too old. Well, you suppose in creating an OS (Like MS-DOS) or just make it open-source and running it within Linux. I have great command line skills and know perhaps too much. In an 64-bit version of DOS you could create (simpler) installation and execution paths instead of "sudo apt-get install ... (program, libraries)" and make it "install "program". Makes it easier like old MS-DOS.

 

[huffandy]

Also to add, create a GUI to run plus other instances on top of that OS. Instance #1 would be GUI and the operating system. #2 Program #1 ... Program #2 and so forth and create these instances to run on top of instance #1.

 

[whm1974]

Oh, I see. They are too old. Well, you suppose in creating an OS (Like MS-DOS) or just make it open-source and running it within Linux. I have great command line skills and know perhaps too much. In an 64-bit version of DOS you could create (simpler) installation and execution paths instead of "sudo apt-get install ... (program, libraries)" and make it "install "program". Makes it easier like old MS-DOS.

I have to ask, but what would be the point of this? It would be much quicker and easier to use Arch Linux or Manjaro Architect to install the base system and go from there. You can also create your custom distro from source code as well.

 

[huffandy]

You see, it's more like reinventing an old operating system and making it modern. Suppose I was the CEO of Microsoft and a wanted to reinvent DOS. And I could just do that. I'd have a GUI and run all the programs to run as native within the GUI. That's all.

 

[whm1974]

You see, it's more like reinventing an old operating system and making it modern. Suppose I was the CEO of Microsoft and a wanted to reinvent DOS. And I could just do that. I'd have a GUI and run all the programs to run as native within the GUI. That's all.

And who do you expect to use this, or help you develop it? Keep in mind that in order for this "DOS" to be usable for modern use cases it will end up being very far from DOS.

 

[huffandy]

True, but suppose there would be 1000 instances and they would just be basically DOS programs and GUI DOS programs (like upgraded Windows programs). Are you catching me. They would be allotted a certain amount of memory each. As with the main instance, probably 1-2 GB allotted for OS.

 

[whm1974]

True, but suppose there would be 1000 instances and they would just be basically DOS programs and GUI DOS programs (like upgraded Windows programs). Are you catching me. They would be allotted a certain amount of memory each. As with the main instance, probably 1-2 GB allotted for OS.

I believe that you can now do this with DOSBox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSBox

 

[huffandy]

I believe that you can now do this with DOSBox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSBox

Let me clarify the "main" instance, it would be the primary OS for the system.

 

[whm1974]

Let me clarify the "main" instance, it would be the primary OS for the system.

I know that, but I just can't see the point of developing something like this when you can use DosBox on many modern OSes and do the same thing.

 

[huffandy]

Because DOSBox doesn't run natively.

 

[whm1974]

Because DOSBox doesn't run natively.

So what?

 

[huffandy]

Well, in order to use all of the motherboards features, an operating system that can run natively is very important.

 

[whm1974]

Well, in order to use all of the motherboards features, an operating system that can run natively is very important.

Well true what exactly would be the point of running many old DOS programs at the same time? Anyone who still wants to use DOS programs in DOS is running FreeDOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS

 

[huffandy]

No, they can be also be modified to have menuing systems as with the OS. Modern DOS programs is what I mean.

 

[huffandy]

Now, they say that Microsoft uses Visual Studio to create Windows, so, this is not following that route.

 

[whm1974]

Modern DOS programs are still being developed on FreeDOS. Quite a few writers use this as a way to avoid being distracted while working. And for this usage, it works out very well for them.

Did you know that both Wordstar and WordPerfect still have a following?

 

[huffandy]

Sure! It sounds like a DOS lovers paradise! I was getting interested in the GUI version of WordPerfect for DOS in Win 7. So, do you think it is possible? And also, there is full screen mode too

 

[whm1974]

Sure! It sounds like a DOS lovers paradise! I was getting interested in the GUI version of WordPerfect for DOS in Win 7. So, do you think it is possible?

You could ask over at the DOSbox users forums, they can tell you that.

 

[huffandy]

Hey what I meant was, This whole multiple instance "garbage" in DOS? Do you think that it could be done?

 

[whm1974]

Hey what I meant was, This whole multiple instance "garbage" in DOS?

Well the point of using FreeDOS for some users is because it is single tasking and runs one and only one instance so they can completely focus on working.

Other then older systems and for the above, it is/was also used for updating firmware. My Thinkpad T430 does this.