Why many DOS based tools in it's own image?

Discussion/announcements about test/beta releases of UBCD will be posted here.

Moderators: Icecube, StopSpazzing

Post Reply
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:46 pm

Why many DOS based tools in it's own image?

#1 Post by pio » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:18 pm

Only talking about the DOS bases part of UBCD...

I wonder why UBCD has such a big boot menu. Most of the entry does not seam necessary.

Some tools of their own place inside the boot menu, other tools are just hang around in the folder names dosapps.

Why not let the user choose in the bootmenu to boot either MS-, Free or WhateverDOS and after DOS is booted pop up a nice DOS based menu advertising all the DOS based application.

After the application terminated you could open that menu again and the user could start the next tool without need to reboot. But why any tool should get it's own image?

I think the work to update all images (for example if new version of ctmouse) is much bigger then updating a single DOS image (at the end of that image with the new menu I suggested...).

Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:52 pm

#2 Post by Icecube » Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:07 am

Most of the images use the same freedos image. Not all dos programs work with it because they don't allow the use of memory extenders.

In the freedos image of UBCD5, there is a menu.

For more information about the freedos image, look at:

Victor Chew
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:59 pm

#3 Post by Victor Chew » Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:10 am

I just wanna add, a few of the apps could potentially work with FreeDOS, but because they are distributed by companies in their own bootdisk, I am wary of using the EXE individually due to possible legal issues. As such, I keep those in their own bootdisk images.

Post Reply