The very weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option
By Hein-Pieter van Braam, May 15, 2022
- https://blog.tmm.cx/2022/05/15/the-very-weird-hewlett-packard-freedos-option/

"In this installment: some strange things I discovered when
purchasing a FreeDOS laptop from Hewlett Packard. I suspect that
the audience for this will be somewhat limited but I had fun
exploring this. Perhaps you, dear reader, will find a chuckle in
here too.
Some background: I recently purchased a HP ZBook 17.8 G8 as I run
Fedora Linux I decided to have a little fun with the OS selection
and picked the FreeDOS option (Other options include Ubuntu, and
various flavors of Windows 11)." ...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2022-10-15, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> The very weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option
> By Hein-Pieter van Braam, May 15, 2022
> - https://blog.tmm.cx/2022/05/15/the-very-weird-hewlett-packard-freedos-option/
>
> "In this installment: some strange things I discovered when
> purchasing a FreeDOS laptop from Hewlett Packard. I suspect that

This was a really interesting read, and not what I expected. What a
complicated setup they put in place!

I once bought a Lenovo netbook with FreeDOS and installed Linux seconds
after getting home. HP obviously expects you to do the same, so none of
the complexity is expected to last for very long.

(Looks like a nice laptop, by the way).

Am 15.10.2022 um 10:17:17 Uhr schrieb Computer Nerd Kev:

> Some background: I recently purchased a HP ZBook 17.8 G8 as I run
> Fedora Linux I decided to have a little fun with the OS selection
> and picked the FreeDOS option (Other options include Ubuntu, and
> various flavors of Windows 11)." ...

But why do they offer that?
Only a really small amount of people needs that, even less than people
wanting GNU/Linux on their machines.

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 15.10.2022 um 10:17:17 Uhr schrieb Computer Nerd Kev:
>
>> Some background: I recently purchased a HP ZBook 17.8 G8 as I run
>> Fedora Linux I decided to have a little fun with the OS selection
>> and picked the FreeDOS option (Other options include Ubuntu, and
>> various flavors of Windows 11)." ...
>
> But why do they offer that?
> Only a really small amount of people needs that, even less than people
> wanting GNU/Linux on their machines.

If you look at the article, the first screen shot therein explains why.
The FreeDOS option allows those, with no interest in paying the
windows tax, the ability to purchase the laptop without paying the
windows tax (which ranges from a low of 97.25 Euros to 162.47 Euros per
the screen shot).

The Ubuntu option also avoids the tax, but 'FreeDOS' might be aimed at
corportate purchasing departments that already have a blanket MS
licence for installing windows on their hardware themselves. FreeDOS
would allow just enough "it works, reimage the disk" testing by the
group who reimages the disks to handle DOA situations.

Am 15.10.2022 um 15:53:06 Uhr schrieb Rich:

> Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> > Am 15.10.2022 um 10:17:17 Uhr schrieb Computer Nerd Kev:
> >
> >> Some background: I recently purchased a HP ZBook 17.8 G8 as I run
> >> Fedora Linux I decided to have a little fun with the OS selection
> >> and picked the FreeDOS option (Other options include Ubuntu, and
> >> various flavors of Windows 11)." ...
> >
> > But why do they offer that?
> > Only a really small amount of people needs that, even less than
> > people wanting GNU/Linux on their machines.
>
> If you look at the article, the first screen shot therein explains
> why. The FreeDOS option allows those, with no interest in paying the
> windows tax, the ability to purchase the laptop without paying the
> windows tax (which ranges from a low of 97.25 Euros to 162.47 Euros
> per the screen shot).

No operating system would also avoid the Windows license and creates
less work for HP.

> The Ubuntu option also avoids the tax, but 'FreeDOS' might be aimed
> at corportate purchasing departments that already have a blanket MS
> licence for installing windows on their hardware themselves. FreeDOS
> would allow just enough "it works, reimage the disk" testing by the
> group who reimages the disks to handle DOA situations.

What are DOA situations?
I don't see a reason for FreeDOS here, they can directly install
Windows/any other OS without even booting FreeDOS. I think there is
another reason for HP to provide it.

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 15.10.2022 um 15:53:06 Uhr schrieb Rich:
>
>> Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>> > Am 15.10.2022 um 10:17:17 Uhr schrieb Computer Nerd Kev:
>> >
>> >> Some background: I recently purchased a HP ZBook 17.8 G8 as I run
>> >> Fedora Linux I decided to have a little fun with the OS selection
>> >> and picked the FreeDOS option (Other options include Ubuntu, and
>> >> various flavors of Windows 11)." ...
>> >
>> > But why do they offer that?
>> > Only a really small amount of people needs that, even less than
>> > people wanting GNU/Linux on their machines.
>>
>> If you look at the article, the first screen shot therein explains
>> why. The FreeDOS option allows those, with no interest in paying the
>> windows tax, the ability to purchase the laptop without paying the
>> windows tax (which ranges from a low of 97.25 Euros to 162.47 Euros
>> per the screen shot).
>
> No operating system would also avoid the Windows license and creates
> less work for HP.
>
>> The Ubuntu option also avoids the tax, but 'FreeDOS' might be aimed
>> at corportate purchasing departments that already have a blanket MS
>> licence for installing windows on their hardware themselves. FreeDOS
>> would allow just enough "it works, reimage the disk" testing by the
>> group who reimages the disks to handle DOA situations.
>
> What are DOA situations?

DOA = Dead On Arrival -- FreeDOS would boot 'just enough' for the
minimum wage contract worker to filter likely "works" from "broken from
factory" without needing to invest much in /training/ for that same
person by "big corp".

> I don't see a reason for FreeDOS here, they can directly install
> Windows/any other OS without even booting FreeDOS. I think there is
> another reason for HP to provide it.

The worker doing the dead on arrival filtering (and unboxing) is the
minimum wage worker with minimum training. The person doing the
"install" is the next level up in pay. Having the higher cost worker
also doing the dead on arrival filter would compute out to to be a
higher net cost to some bean counter in budgeting.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> DOA = Dead On Arrival -- FreeDOS would boot 'just enough' for the
> minimum wage contract worker to filter likely "works" from "broken from
> factory" without needing to invest much in /training/ for that same
> person by "big corp".

The other advantage of FreeDOS (or this kind of FreeDOS frankenstein) over a
full Linux distro like Ubuntu is it doesn't support all the hardware of the
machine. So you don't need to bother about Linux drivers for the
fingerprint reader or whatever, because FreeDOS doesn't have any software
that uses fingerprints. If you give people Ubuntu they will expect things
to work and complain when they don't.

Apparently FreeDOS requires the legacy BIOS functions and PCs since 2020
don't support them (UEFI only), which is why there's an emulation layer been
put underneath FreeDOS.

> The worker doing the dead on arrival filtering (and unboxing) is the
> minimum wage worker with minimum training. The person doing the
> "install" is the next level up in pay. Having the higher cost worker
> also doing the dead on arrival filter would compute out to to be a
> higher net cost to some bean counter in budgeting.

Presumably there's a production process which includes imaging the HDD, and
the HDD image has to contain 'something' to check that the HDD and basic
hardware (keyboard, screen) is working correctly.

Theo

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>
>> I don't see a reason for FreeDOS here, they can directly install
>> Windows/any other OS without even booting FreeDOS. I think there is
>> another reason for HP to provide it.
>
> The worker doing the dead on arrival filtering (and unboxing) is the
> minimum wage worker with minimum training. The person doing the
> "install" is the next level up in pay. Having the higher cost worker
> also doing the dead on arrival filter would compute out to to be a
> higher net cost to some bean counter in budgeting.

A valid point, but I suspect another reason is that companies who
install their own OS image have likely been ordering these things
since the days when some portion users may have actually
wanted/needed DOS. The people doing the ordering probably have no
idea what DOS is or why they select it, just that it's what the
IT people require. If HP take away that option, they'll probably
cause years of confusion as each company engages in lots of
back-and-forth to determine whether it's OK to order the laptops
from HP with the "blank" option. Maybe some hopeless cases would
even end up so confused that they purchase from a competitor
that still offers a DOS option instead.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> A valid point, but I suspect another reason is that companies who
> install their own OS image have likely been ordering these things
> since the days when some portion users may have actually
> wanted/needed DOS.

I doubt that (I can't think when companies would have last actually wanted
DOS in volume, maybe sometime in 1990s?). But it's possible 'DOS' has
become fossilised as a placeholder for 'I'm not paying the Windows tax
because I'll install my own OS'. That route must be not uncommon for
corporates who have their own volume Windows licences and don't need one to
come with the hardware, which might make it a quite popular option. When
DOS could no longer run on modern hardware, they did this virtualisation
hack.

> The people doing the ordering probably have no idea what DOS is or why
> they select it, just that it's what the IT people require. If HP take
> away that option, they'll probably cause years of confusion as each
> company engages in lots of back-and-forth to determine whether it's OK to
> order the laptops from HP with the "blank" option. Maybe some hopeless
> cases would even end up so confused that they purchase from a competitor
> that still offers a DOS option instead.

I doubt it's what IT people require (I'm sure they are smarter than that),
but maybe there are contracts like 'DoD will buy 1 million desktops
installed with DOS' and so HP do it to fulfill the contract.

OTOH I wonder whether the various Microsoft antitrust cases had a bearing:
perhaps MS was unable to prevent the vendors from shipping hardware without
a Windows licence, but the vendors agreed to ship something as useless as
possible, rather than something that would actually compete.

This particular dev laptop has an Ubuntu preinstall option which would be
infinitely better, but most business laptops won't. I wouldn't be
surprised, though, if in future they were to just have a FreeDOS 'app'
running inside Ubuntu, rather than their own Debian build. I think the
Debian build may predate Ubuntu dev preinstalls, but they must keep having
to update at least the kernel for new hardware, so maintenance isn't zero.

Theo

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>I don't see a reason for FreeDOS here, they can directly install
>Windows/any other OS without even booting FreeDOS. I think there is
>another reason for HP to provide it.

They could, but it is nice to have an operating system for testing so
you can just validate that the system is good before dropping a brand new
OS on it. As mentioned, a number of systems turn up DOA.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 16 Oct 2022 14:06:05 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:

> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> A valid point, but I suspect another reason is that companies who
>> install their own OS image have likely been ordering these things since
>> the days when some portion users may have actually wanted/needed DOS.
>
> I doubt that (I can't think when companies would have last actually
> wanted DOS in volume, maybe sometime in 1990s?). But it's possible
> 'DOS' has become fossilised as a placeholder for 'I'm not paying the
> Windows tax because I'll install my own OS'. That route must be not
> uncommon for corporates who have their own volume Windows licences and
> don't need one to come with the hardware, which might make it a quite
> popular option. When DOS could no longer run on modern hardware, they
> did this virtualisation hack.

MsDOS doesn't, but Free DOS probably does. It would be interesting to see
the author try that, just for fun.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS#Compatibility>

....

> OTOH I wonder whether the various Microsoft antitrust cases had a
> bearing: perhaps MS was unable to prevent the vendors from shipping
> hardware without a Windows licence, but the vendors agreed to ship
> something as useless as possible, rather than something that would
> actually compete.

I think this is true. Vendors have to ship machines with some operating
system, depending on the country.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2022 14:06:05 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>
> > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> >> A valid point, but I suspect another reason is that companies who
> >> install their own OS image have likely been ordering these things since
> >> the days when some portion users may have actually wanted/needed DOS.
> >
> > I doubt that (I can't think when companies would have last actually
> > wanted DOS in volume, maybe sometime in 1990s?). But it's possible
> > 'DOS' has become fossilised as a placeholder for 'I'm not paying the
> > Windows tax because I'll install my own OS'. That route must be not
> > uncommon for corporates who have their own volume Windows licences and
> > don't need one to come with the hardware, which might make it a quite
> > popular option. When DOS could no longer run on modern hardware, they
> > did this virtualisation hack.
>
> MsDOS doesn't, but Free DOS probably does. It would be interesting to see
> the author try that, just for fun.

It doesn't:

http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3
(20 Feb 2022)

"FreeDOS 1.3 will not support UEFI-only systems. You will need to enable
"legacy" or "compatibility" mode in your UEFI to emulate a BIOS.

Since Intel plans to end "legacy BIOS" support in their new platforms by
2020 (in favor of UEFI) users have asked if FreeDOS will be updated to
support UEFI. The short answer is No.

Like any DOS, FreeDOS makes use of BIOS for video and disk functions. But
even if these functions were moved into the FreeDOS kernel, note that there
are many, many existing DOS programs that directly use BIOS to work.
FreeDOS cannot "emulate" BIOS for these programs. "

Theo

On 25 Oct 2022 09:55:29 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2022 14:06:05 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>>
>> > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> >> A valid point, but I suspect another reason is that companies who
>> >> install their own OS image have likely been ordering these things
>> >> since the days when some portion users may have actually
>> >> wanted/needed DOS.
>> >
>> > I doubt that (I can't think when companies would have last actually
>> > wanted DOS in volume, maybe sometime in 1990s?). But it's possible
>> > 'DOS' has become fossilised as a placeholder for 'I'm not paying the
>> > Windows tax because I'll install my own OS'. That route must be not
>> > uncommon for corporates who have their own volume Windows licences
>> > and don't need one to come with the hardware, which might make it a
>> > quite popular option. When DOS could no longer run on modern
>> > hardware, they did this virtualisation hack.
>>
>> MsDOS doesn't, but Free DOS probably does. It would be interesting to
>> see the author try that, just for fun.
>
> It doesn't:
>
> http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3 (20 Feb 2022)
>
> "FreeDOS 1.3 will not support UEFI-only systems. You will need to
> enable "legacy" or "compatibility" mode in your UEFI to emulate a BIOS.
>
> Since Intel plans to end "legacy BIOS" support in their new platforms by
> 2020 (in favor of UEFI) users have asked if FreeDOS will be updated to
> support UEFI. The short answer is No.
>
> Like any DOS, FreeDOS makes use of BIOS for video and disk functions.
> But even if these functions were moved into the FreeDOS kernel, note
> that there are many, many existing DOS programs that directly use BIOS
> to work. FreeDOS cannot "emulate" BIOS for these programs. "

They are not only removing the bios boot "system", but also all the
functionality, the bios "interrupts"?

That will also affect legacy software out there.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2022 09:55:29 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3 (20 Feb 2022)
> >
> > "FreeDOS 1.3 will not support UEFI-only systems. You will need to
> > enable "legacy" or "compatibility" mode in your UEFI to emulate a BIOS.
> >
> > Since Intel plans to end "legacy BIOS" support in their new platforms by
> > 2020 (in favor of UEFI) users have asked if FreeDOS will be updated to
> > support UEFI. The short answer is No.
> >
> > Like any DOS, FreeDOS makes use of BIOS for video and disk functions.
> > But even if these functions were moved into the FreeDOS kernel, note
> > that there are many, many existing DOS programs that directly use BIOS
> > to work. FreeDOS cannot "emulate" BIOS for these programs. "
>
>
> They are not only removing the bios boot "system", but also all the
> functionality, the bios "interrupts"?
>
> That will also affect legacy software out there.

AIUI that's what they're talking about. CSM is the mechanism by which UEFI
can support legacy BIOS calls. Intel wants to/has removed CSM. It seems
AMD hasn't decided to do that, yet.

Although:

Intel Client Platform Programs for 2020+
* Starting with client platforms launching in 2020 [1]. Intel will no longer be supporting legacy Basic
Input/output System (BIOS) mode.
* This means that Intel will not support issues, questions, or debug scenarios on legacy platform BIOS
configurations, as they are not official plan on record.
[1] Includes 10 th generation Intel platforms launching in 2020 and all future platforms.
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/intel-nuc/Legacy-BIOS-Boot-Support-Removal-for-Intel-Platforms.pdf

I'm not sure if that means the feature has been removed or 'it's there but
we won't answer the phone about it'.

Although I think the point is a bit moot - if you can't boot DOS/Win3/Win9x
via UEFI, how can apps make BIOS calls? I'm not sure that the NT line (XP
and later) uses BIOS calls directly.

Theo

On 27 Oct 2022 09:42:10 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2022 09:55:29 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>> > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3 (20 Feb 2022)
>> >
>> > "FreeDOS 1.3 will not support UEFI-only systems. You will need to
>> > enable "legacy" or "compatibility" mode in your UEFI to emulate a
>> > BIOS.
>> >
>> > Since Intel plans to end "legacy BIOS" support in their new platforms
>> > by 2020 (in favor of UEFI) users have asked if FreeDOS will be
>> > updated to support UEFI. The short answer is No.
>> >
>> > Like any DOS, FreeDOS makes use of BIOS for video and disk functions.
>> > But even if these functions were moved into the FreeDOS kernel, note
>> > that there are many, many existing DOS programs that directly use
>> > BIOS to work. FreeDOS cannot "emulate" BIOS for these programs. "
>>
>>
>> They are not only removing the bios boot "system", but also all the
>> functionality, the bios "interrupts"?
>>
>> That will also affect legacy software out there.
>
> AIUI that's what they're talking about. CSM is the mechanism by which
> UEFI can support legacy BIOS calls. Intel wants to/has removed CSM. It
> seems AMD hasn't decided to do that, yet.
>
> Although:
>
> Intel Client Platform Programs for 2020+
> * Starting with client platforms launching in 2020 [1]. Intel will no
> longer be supporting legacy Basic Input/output System (BIOS) mode.
> * This means that Intel will not support issues, questions, or debug
> scenarios on legacy platform BIOS configurations, as they are not
> official plan on record.
> [1] Includes 10 th generation Intel platforms launching in 2020 and all
> future platforms.
> https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/intel-nuc/
Legacy-BIOS-Boot-Support-Removal-for-Intel-Platforms.pdf
>
> I'm not sure if that means the feature has been removed or 'it's there
> but we won't answer the phone about it'.
>
> Although I think the point is a bit moot - if you can't boot
> DOS/Win3/Win9x via UEFI, how can apps make BIOS calls? I'm not sure
> that the NT line (XP and later) uses BIOS calls directly.

Well, there are applications running in an MsDOS shell under Windows, for
instance. Not virtualized. I'm not using any, but there are people around
who are. I suspect there are industrial setups, machines, that are using
MsDOS software.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>Well, there are applications running in an MsDOS shell under Windows, for
>instance. Not virtualized. I'm not using any, but there are people around
>who are. I suspect there are industrial setups, machines, that are using
>MsDOS software.

The Windows command line is as awful as MS-DOS and it is sort of a little
bit compatible with MS-DOS but the similarity ends there. It is -not- an
"MS-DOS shell" even if many Windows people call it the "DOS Window."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Well, there are applications running in an MsDOS shell under Windows, for
> >instance. Not virtualized. I'm not using any, but there are people around
> >who are. I suspect there are industrial setups, machines, that are using
> >MsDOS software.
>
> The Windows command line is as awful as MS-DOS and it is sort of a little
> bit compatible with MS-DOS but the similarity ends there. It is -not- an
> "MS-DOS shell" even if many Windows people call it the "DOS Window."
> --scott

I'm not really familiar with the plumbing here, but I think that if you
launch a DOS app in a Windows command window, the BIOS calls are emulated by
Windows. After all, if the thing tries to do 'clear screen' or change video
mode it doesn't clear or change the whole screen (as the real BIOS would)
but only affects the command window.

I think on '95 you could still make BIOS calls and such apps would run
fullscreen, but not in NT.

<googles> It's called NTVDM and was introduced in 1993:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/ntvdm-and-16-bit-app-support
but only works on 32 bit x86 versions of Windows.

Theo

Theo wrote:
> Although I think the point is a bit moot - if you can't boot DOS/Win3/Win9x
> via UEFI, how can apps make BIOS calls? I'm not sure that the NT line (XP
> and later) uses BIOS calls directly.

OS/2, well actually ArcaOS (https://arcanoea.com), OEM version of OS/2,
is handling it by having a minimal video BIOS setup during the preboot.
As DOS runs in ring2, it has always trapped disk access and emulated the
BIOS functions (same with the mouse). It should be able to run FreeDOS
with the 8.3 FAT limitations.
It actually works quite well with most DOS and Win3.1 programs running
well, both full screen and windowed in a UEFI boot, at least as long as
the frame buffer can be put into the lower 4GB of memory. There are
systems appearing where it isn't possible, same with PCI address space.
Dave