3 ms·
Not sure what you mean by limited here? You have quite a few options are your disposal these days. (Depending on how you scope "power user") Cygwin (OSS co
by mey 6y ago
Not sure what you mean by limited here? You have quite a few options are your disposal these days. (Depending on how you scope "power user")
Cygwin (OSS compiled to Win APIs)
Powershell (Native Windows fun)
WSL 1 (Linux ABI Bindings to Win Kernel)
WSL 2 (Thin Hyper-V running a full Linux Kernel, with Plan9 FS mappings to Windows filesystem) (Insider Preview, should be releasing this quarter)
Hyper-V
DOSBox
Docker (Hyper-V, soon to take advantage of WSL-2)
Most of the above also benefit from the work being done over at the new Terminal https://github.com/Microsoft/Terminal https://github.com/Microsoft/Terminal
- skissane 6y ago> DOSBox Much as I love DOSBox, I don't think it belongs on your list. In fact, DOSBox's command line capabilities are weak compared to genuine MS-DOS (which is already quite weak to begin with) – it doesn't fully support COMMAND.COM's syntax, it lacks many of the commands/utilities that come with MS-DOS, etc. – it is just the bare minimum to get most game launcher batch files to work. And that's unlikely to ever change, since DOSBox devs generally aren't interested in improving the accuracy of the MS-DOS emulation unless that improvement helps run some game – if you want a more accurate emulation of MS-DOS, they'll point you to FreeDOS instead.
- mey 6y agoFair point. I leave the post as is for posterity. I wonder if https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS will improve that situation.