Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Some ideas about FreeDOS x64


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 njlyf2011

njlyf2011
  • Members
  • 9 posts
  •  
    China

Posted 11 February 2015 - 01:28 PM

Today, 64 Bit OS are more popular than other OS like x86 OS or 16-Bit OS. FreeDOS is a good way to fix our PC,but FreeDOS didn't have x64 Edition.

I hope FreeDOS Team can create FreeDOS x64.



#2 Agent47

Agent47

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 164 posts
  •  
    India

Posted 11 February 2015 - 02:05 PM

In my opinion, NTFS support is what we needed than x64 version. I mean we have already working NTFS drivers ( reverse engineered ) as part of Linux distros. Is it that hard to create a basic driver based on that ?. May be it's too complicated than what i am assuming. After all i am not a programmer.



#3 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 February 2015 - 05:10 PM

Additionally "popular" doesn't really mean "needed" and not even "good", it only means "popular", and the reason WHY it is "popular" is mainly because the people have been misled into thinking that 64 bit is "better" (which isn't) by the continuous pushing by MS and Intel (based on false or at least inaccurate grounds). :frusty:

 

Now, having additionally to current and rather stable :thumbup: Free-DOS (which is 16 bit) a Free-DOS 32 (which is currently in a frozen/abandoned) state would IMHO be a much higher priority:

http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/

 

 

:duff:

Wonko 



#4 njlyf2011

njlyf2011
  • Members
  • 9 posts
  •  
    China

Posted 12 February 2015 - 07:08 AM

Additionally "popular" doesn't really mean "needed" and not even "good", it only means "popular", and the reason WHY it is "popular" is mainly because the people have been misled into thinking that 64 bit is "better" (which isn't) by the continuous pushing by MS and Intel (based on false or at least inaccurate grounds). :frusty:

 

Now, having additionally to current and rather stable :thumbup: Free-DOS (which is 16 bit) a Free-DOS 32 (which is currently in a frozen/abandoned) state would IMHO be a much higher priority:

http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/

 

 

:duff:

Wonko 

 

Thank you very much



#5 njlyf2011

njlyf2011
  • Members
  • 9 posts
  •  
    China

Posted 12 February 2015 - 07:10 AM

In my opinion, NTFS support is what we needed than x64 version. I mean we have already working NTFS drivers ( reverse engineered ) as part of Linux distros. Is it that hard to create a basic driver based on that ?. May be it's too complicated than what i am assuming. After all i am not a programmer.

 

Yeah. 



#6 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 12 February 2015 - 11:04 AM

Additionally "popular" doesn't really mean "needed" and not even "good", it only means "popular", and the reason WHY it is "popular" is mainly because the people have been misled into thinking that 64 bit is "better" (which isn't) by the continuous pushing by MS and Intel (based on false or at least inaccurate grounds). :frusty:


Wonko, first of all, repeat after me this universal truth: newer is better. :)

You are doing a small confusion between 64-bit and x64. Yes, 64-bit is not necessarily better than 32-bit. But here, we are talking of the x64 architecture, which is in most cases more efficient than the x86 (32-bit), even for a code which uses only 32-bit integers, because of the increased number of registers.

And don't forget: newer is better. :)

#7 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 February 2015 - 11:50 AM

You are doing a small confusion between 64-bit and x64. Yes, 64-bit is not necessarily better than 32-bit. But here, we are talking of the x64 architecture, which is in most cases more efficient than the x86 (32-bit), even for a code which uses only 32-bit integers, because of the increased number of registers.

 

Well,  you have been caught by the virus as well :(, I am sorry for your condition.

 

"Newer" still means "newer", while "better" still means "better" and the two terms SHOULD NOT be liberally interchanged.

 

When/if you will be able to produce some actual results of an actual, valid experiment (related to real life use of a computer in a real life situation) showing that there is *any* noticeable difference (advantage) in speed in 64 bit computing vs. 32 bit one (or 32 bit computing on x64 architecture vs. 32-bit computing on 32-bit architecture) the matter will be gladly revised :), possibly discussing it here:

http://reboot.pro/to...32-bit-version/

 

Specifically to the present topic, a Free-DOS 64 - unless some specific, new and extremely valid reasons justifying it are stated, makes no sense whatever (if you exclude "the fun of it"). 

 

Pkease understand how last character in the above sentence is a "full stop" or "period".

 

:duff:

Wonko



#8 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 12 February 2015 - 01:17 PM

When/if you will be able to produce some actual results of an actual, valid experiment (related to real life use of a computer in a real life situation) showing that there is *any* noticeable difference (advantage) in speed in 64 bit computing vs. 32 bit one (or 32 bit computing on x64 architecture vs. 32-bit computing on 32-bit architecture) the matter will be gladly revised :)

 

Well, I can speak of my own tools...
More and more people are using encryption for protecting their data. For that, performances are crucial.
My ProxyCrypt uses the same code for 32 and 64-bit releases, and performances are greater in 64-bit. Maybe not noticeable enough for your taste though... (if you are interested, type ProxyCrypt64 -bm in command prompt to use the integrated benchmark)

If you want a larger difference, you can check Whirlpool File Checker, but yes, I know, this is not a "real life situation" for you...

But as we are speaking of x86 and x64 architectures, we should not forget the 128-bit instructions brought by the SSE. For instance, the Serpent algorithm is about 2.5 faster with SSE2 instructions than the 32-bit optimized version.

One of the worst differences in performances between 32 and 64-bit can be found here: Keccak (SHA-3) and Skein (which relies on Threefish) are about 3 times slower in 32-bit than in 64-bit.



#9 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 February 2015 - 04:53 PM

More and more people are using encryption for protecting their data. For that, performances are crucial.

Which might mean that encryption is becoming more "popular" :whistling: ...   :frusty:

 

Talking of encryption.... (JFYI)   ;):

http://reboot.pro/to...bartpe/?p=80938

 

:duff:

Wonko



#10 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 12 February 2015 - 06:06 PM

Which might mean that encryption is becoming more "popular" :whistling: ...   :frusty:

 

You were not asking for a "popular" example. But if you really need something more popular, there is the Dolphin emulator, which has removed 32-bit support some months ago. One of the main reasons was of course the performances...

I am now waiting for your examples... at least one case where a 32-bit version is noticeably faster than the 64-bit.

 

 

Talking of encryption.... (JFYI)   ;):

http://reboot.pro/to...bartpe/?p=80938

 

Thanks to your wisdom, I now have the exhaustive list of all the cases in the world where encryption can be useful. I have to admit that I never asked my users why they want to encrypt their data...



#11 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 February 2015 - 06:54 PM

I am now waiting for your examples... at least one case where a 32-bit version is noticeably faster than the 64-bit.

The point was actually that there is no noticeable difference (which does not mean at all that 32 bit is faster than 64 bit, if there is no noticeable difference, it means that none is noticeably faster than the other) in "common use".

 

Still JFYI:

http://reboot.pro/to...32-bit-version/

 

And as a side note, you can start crying and stamp your feet as hard as you want :w00t: :ph34r:, but still each and every 64 bit OS version AND each and every 64 bit tool, is larger in size than the corresponding 32 bit one, which plainly means that more data (bytes) are transferred from storage devices to RAM and viceversa, and this takes MORE time (on a same PC, with the same storage subsystem, with equally performing device drivers), though still it is usually not noticeable.

 

To simplify, you can think of the whole matter of computing performance in terms of the speed of your car.

 

You basically have two ways to go faster, you either increase horse power or reduce weight.

Still, in a race circuit, you (average car driver) won' t be able to notice the difference if you have - say - 10% more power (or reduce weight by 10%) AND you won't have anyway a much shorter time on the lap,  while a professional driver  might probably be able to feel this difference , AND he will surely be able to greatly reduce the lap time.

 

To both the time to bring sons to school or to get to work or to the supermarket won't change noticeably anyway.

 

 

:duff:

Wonko



#12 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 12 February 2015 - 07:47 PM

The point was actually that there is no noticeable difference (which does not mean at all that 32 bit is faster than 64 bit, if there is no noticeable difference, it means that none is noticeably faster than the other) in "common use".

 

The example of the Dolphin emulator shows the exact opposite: in 32-bit, on much machines, games are practically unplayable, while everything works fine in 64-bit on the same machines with the same configuration.

 

 

each and every 64 bit tool, is larger in size than the corresponding 32 bit one

 

Wrong. I have a few versions of ProxyCrypt where the 32-bit version is slightly bigger than the 64-bit one.



#13 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 13 February 2015 - 10:12 AM

Well, it is common to find "right ideas" with "bad examples", you managed to post a "bad example" anyway (while I won't comment on the idea).

 

The good guys that write/maintain that Dolphin emulator put together an excellently written :thumbsup:,  very well documented, page to explain the reasons why they decided to abandon XP and later the whole 32 bit set of Operating systems, citing - among other reasons - the lack of support in MS compilers for the OS, the popularity of 64 bit operating systems, the apparent stupidity of their users (though they managed to put it down in a far less blunt way ;)), but still the nice thingy is a good example of a "niche" tool, very resource intensive, i.e. comparable to the "high end" graphical or computational tools I mentioned elsewhere and not representative of the "average" computing experience, in their own words:

https://it.dolphin-e...obituary-32bit/

 

Most programs can have 32-bit builds and 64-bit builds without trouble or more commonly host only 32-bit builds and let 64-bit users use it as well. For those programs, the benefits of 64-bit don't matter much at all, and the end users need not worry about any of it!

This is not true with Dolphin, where some games still do not run full speed on any existing configuration. Dolphin sees very important and observable benefits in its 64-bit builds!

 

 

It is also worth of note how, even in this specific, resource intensive, environment:

In preparation for this announcement, we did thorough performance testing to compare 32-bit builds and 64-bit builds with no idea how they would actually turn out. While we knew that 32-bit was a little slower, the results were shocking. 

 

the difference in speed were evidently not that much noticeable .

 

Wrong. I have a few versions of ProxyCrypt where the 32-bit version is slightly bigger than the 64-bit one.

I am pretty sure I could write a 16 bit version of ProxyCrypt larger than both of them (and that additionally would not work at all ;)), what gives? :dubbio:

 

:duff:

Wonko



#14 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 13 February 2015 - 01:00 PM

the difference in speed were evidently not that much noticeable .

 

Up to 85% faster, you call that "not that much noticeable"?

 

I am pretty sure I could write a 16 bit version of ProxyCrypt larger than both of them (and that additionally would not work at all ;)), what gives? :dubbio:

 

So what? This is a fact: in some cases, a 32-bit code is bigger than in 64-bit. In almost any programs, you have somewhere a 64-bit integer to process. Doing that in 32-bit take obviously more instructions than in 64-bit. And when you have plenty of 64-bit integers to process, the result is here: a 32-bit code bigger than the equivalent in 64-bit.

Anywhere or almost there is a lot of calculation, x64 gives a faster result than the x86. Even a few % are useful: this allows us to do more things at the same time, this can save battery on laptop, etc. And it's for this that Intel currently works on 512-bits instructions, not just for doing something "new".

 

I wonder why you need so much Windows XP. A 80286 CPU with Windows 3.1 is enough even to go on the web...



#15 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 13 February 2015 - 04:11 PM

I was only citing the source you provided :whistling::

In preparation for this announcement, we did thorough performance testing to compare 32-bit builds and 64-bit builds with no idea how they would actually turn out. While we knew that 32-bit was a little slower, the results were shocking. 

 

 

IF the difference was SO noticeable, THEN they wouldn't have said how they knew "that 32-bit was a little slower" , they would have already known "that the 32-bit was much slower", they would have had no real reason to do "performance testing" on the thingy and definitely they wouldn't have performed the benchmarks  "with no idea how they would actually turn out." (as they would have already expected much lower performance of th 32-bit version) and conversely they would have not been shocked by the results (as the results would have been largely expected). 

 

And sure :), a single 64 bit calculation is faster on 64 bit and when you have a large number of these 64 bit integers to process the 32 bit code may be larger, the point is that on most programs this doesn't happen or it is not noticeable (unless you benchmark the thingy) or more generally the effects on the average user computing experience is not that much affected by this.

 

And, as said ad nauseam by now, the above does not apply to programs that by their nature require a big number of calculations, etc., etc. :frusty: the point is about generic computing.

 

IF (and WHEN) by using 64 bit computing (instead of 32 bit computing) you (or anyone else, intended as "average user" ) will be able to perform in a same time activities like:

  • write/send (or read/receive) MORE (or BETTER) letters/e-mails
  • create MORE (or BETTER) spreadsheets
  • view MORE (or BETTER) internet sites
  • compose (or play) MORE (or BETTER) music
  • draw MORE (or BETTER) drawings
  • retouch/edit MORE (or BETTER) images
  • etc.

 

then 64 bit computing will represent a speed advantage, right now it does represent a clear advantage in some rather "narrow" fields, like (again examples):

  • 3D rendering
  • animation/computer graphics
  • heavy calculations

 

though in these "high end" fields the trend is more towards dedicated hardware and non-Windows OS.

 

 

:duff:

Wonko



#16 RoyM

RoyM

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 398 posts
  • Interests:Component level repair, Micro-processor based equipment. Computer Repair + Custom Builds.
    (ie. Game Machines, Custom Firewalls\Smoothwalls)
    Network Penetration and testing + Wireless.
    Fishing, Hunting, Camping, Gaming.
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 February 2015 - 04:55 AM

To Clarify my response a bit.
 
I am only refering to the x86 and the x64 CPU architecture.
32 bit will refer to software built and compiled for the x86 architecture.
64 bit will refer to software built and compiled for the x64 architecture.
"There are 'many' other architectures out there!, and some VERY good ones"
 
The real issue is not who is faster, but who doesn't have hardware limits.
the x86 architecture hits a built in hardware ceiling. 
the x64 architectures theoretical limit is 2 to the 64th power or, 16 exbibytes. <-- (That's a lot)
 
My real-life examples of x64 superiority are as follows:
 
Example 1:
I recently purchased online from Steam, Call of Duty Advanced Warfare.
It was like VIP package or somethin' like that, $100.
Downloaded it on my gaming machine, and whalla, it required x64.
Luckily, I have a dual boot Win7 machine x86/x64, with quad, dedicated and paired Hard Drive's, that are raided.  
I have the x64 OS installed onto 2 SSD's, raid 0 <-- (It's Awesome)
 
@ njlyf2011
Originaly when I thought, what's the 'use' of an x64 Dos build,
what data could you possibly manipulate in a dos environment that would require x64 code
 
Example 2:
I personaly know of a commercial product that uses a type of FreeDos as it's OS, and it has a very graphical output.
Yes, it's using a 32 bit OS now, but someday, it will need to support bigger and bigger numbers, "Hello x64".
 
Example 3:
One of the main reasons I included an x64 build into the WinFE script
was from FTK Imager's website, and they recommended 64 bit OS's with their product
because when Huge databases needed to be imaged, 32 bit would not cut it.
 
With the way things are going with hardware these days, bigger and bigger chunks of data are needed to
be manipulated, that means more memory, if you code for x86, you may be destined to become abandonware,
 
To summize, the x64 structure is more about larger than faster.
 
 
Regards
RoyM


#17 wendy

wendy

    Frequent Member

  • Lady
  • 263 posts
  • Location:one mile from the QR main line
  • Interests:Operating systems, Weights and Measures, Geometry
  •  
    Australia

Posted 14 February 2015 - 09:50 AM

FreeOS2 would be a better bet here.  There's already OS/2 software out there, and OS/2 allows one to load various drivers for established filing systems.  Moreover, there has been some work on OS/4 and a new loader, so the whole mess should not take much on a cdrom to do many useful things.

 

 


  • Nuno Brito likes this

#18 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13329 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 February 2015 - 12:43 PM

@RoyM

Which is good :), though you provided two meaningful examples that are related to:

  • Gaming (which anyway belongs to a "niche", part of the "high end" field, and for which dedicated hardware and non-windows is commonly used - please read as Playstation or Xbox)
  • Computer forensics (which is a rather "narrow" field) 

@Wendy

Sure :thumbsup:, OS/2 is the little great OS that never was :( (killed prematurely by the combined effects of IBM's and MS's stupidity).

 

:duff:

Wonko



#19 bblaauw

bblaauw

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 105 posts
  •  
    Netherlands

Posted 14 February 2015 - 10:24 PM

As entertaining as this topic is, I don't see any clear advantages in a 32bit or 64bit FreeDOS as you lose a lot of compatibility with existing DOS operating systems and user/system software. If you want to extend DOS, my guess is you could start with either filesystem drivers or memory drivers (XMS manager and ramdisk driver or caching program) so memory beyond the currently-accessible DOS memory (up to 4GB) can be used on modern systems instead of sitting idle. But more likely GRUB bootloader is able to do that already without occupying anything in the DOS-accessible part (PAE-like).

 

What I also wouldn't mind seeing:

* opensource UNDI packet driver. The licensed one from EMBOOT is forgotten software. Shims currently possible, not preferred

* ISO9660 CD driver for accessing a ISOHYBRID partition on harddisk or USB Flash Drive.

 

Dedicated DOS machines I see most likely in that pre-announced Intel x86 HDMI dongle (single board computer, 200 euro maybe or so?) or in an emulator on the Raspberry Pi 2 model B machine ( $35 ). I'm not sure any modern hardware still exists that's fully DOS compatible for disk access and drivers for SOUND, LAN, Graphics and input devices, let alone those desiring PS/2, serial or parallel ports.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users