Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Seeking the middle ground ... (Announce)

posted by Jack E-mail, Fresno, California USA, 09.06.2010, 04:29

> In other words in an ideal world it would be good in terms of
> "flexibility" if you both implemented your work as combined device
> driver / loadable TSR's.
Unneeded for UIDE, given Eric Auer's DEVLOAD that can load it at any time.

> Normally unloading TSR's/devices is also a very good thing, however I
> have > reservations about the safe and reliable unloading of low level
> DISK routines. That is to say I would question if the unload risks
> outweigh any flexibility.
There would be few risks unloading UIDE, as it "hooks" only the Int 13h
vector and can easily "give back" its XMS and upper memory. The problem
is that most users load it in the HMA, and I am not sure if HMA space can
be "given back". Also, when it uses HMA space, UIDE normally takes only
944 bytes of upper/DOS memory for its stack (520 bytes), entry and exit
logic, and its common data. As I noted in this thread to Rugxulo, are
people THAT "desperate" for memory that only 944 bytes really matters??

> Certainly I believe Jack is right to be cautious and I greatly respect
> that approach with regards to disk routines. However the Pareto principle
> aka 80:20 rule
> is also a good guide in that it is impossible (and not worthwhile) to aim
> for 100% perfection in anything. As programmers we will never think of
> all possible events but it is important to cover the most likely. So in
> some ways Jack I would say that you are being over cautious in some ways
> but not without good reason.
Computers are among VERY few "black and white" subjects on earth. They
either work 100%, or they "Fall on their NOSES!", with not so many "minor
bug" situations in the middle. Also, since most of us on this board are
"senior" (not by age, like me, but by KNOWLEDGE), I hope none of you will
be offended when I say there ARE "users out there" who WILL tend to blame
drivers like UIDE for all their problems, since UIDE was not part of the
original DOS system and is not absolutely necessary, despite its speed or
performance. MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM in fact ARE absolutely required,
but my drivers aren't. In their minds, that makes UIDE a whole lot more
"suspect", and so I MUST be cautious. Also, I want UIDE to be "generic"
and run across ALL variants of DOS, and that too requires caution.

"Blessed are the peacemakers", and you will get to Heaven before me, my
friend. However, on the idea of a hard-disk being fixed or removable,
I do not see any "middle ground" that is reliable-ENOUGH for me to permit
in UIDE. DOS hard-disk logic was never designed to support removability
and may in fact IGNORE a media-change code, as its disks ARE supposed to
be "HARD". So "down the pipes!" you go, as you also noted for cartridge
devices/software. On that issue, I also MUST remain cautious, and I am
about to send a 9-Jun-2010 DRIVERS.ZIP to Khusraw and to Johnson Lam for
their final tests.

>> Why don't we keep BTTR as the best "technical" board, and stop all such
>> unneeded items. That, in fact, is why I post here, and not elsewhere.
>
> I think it is important to keep BTTR inclusive. Personally I have seen
> very few non-worthwhile posts on here. We can all learn off each other.
Well, if even Marcov can get me to eliminate a few capital letters, then
I guess you are right, and "A gentleman and a scholar in ANY universe!",
as Captain Kirk once said to the "Pirate Ship" Mr. Spock in my all-time
favorite 1967 Star Trek episode entitled "Mirror, Mirror"! :-)

---
(Account disabled on user's request.)

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22781 Postings in 2123 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum