Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

definitions again (Developers)

posted by marcov, 20.03.2024, 12:53

> Not really. Once you switch to source compatibility,
Yes. Or if you just declare you must use development tool X only.

But that is not compatibility. You are define a new platform or a new platform (depending on your generated binaries running on the standard editions of dos/windows).

> C90 programs work anywhere. So everything is everything.
That is unix philosophy emulation on other targets. It is more like making a new cygwin.

> So you may as well not bother talking about that.
>
> Or am I missing something?
Yes. That your "switch" is actually a paradigm shift. You add a limitation on applications (c90, though most C compilers now go for C99 compatibility)

> > Anyway, if there were a Microsoft 32-bit Dos, I would assume compatibles
> > could run its binary applications and vice versa, analogous to Dos or
> > Windows.
>
> Ok, that's fine. First - the concept of a 32-bit DOS
> does in fact exist. It's not a contradiction in terms,
> at least by your definition.

> And secondly, you are
> confirming that it doesn't exist, rather than saying
> that Windows is 32-bit MSDOS.

No I didn't. I said Dos and windows were similar in compatibility philosophy, not that they were the same.

> Or DOS extenders are.
The various extenders are their own subtargets, like cygwin is a subtarget of Windows. Binaries from Extender X usually don't work with Y.

> And then we can guess at what Microsoft would have
> created had they so desired.
I think it would have been a commandline like the pre warp OS/2's .

> And then imagine compatibility with that.
Compatibility that they can run eachothers binaries. (and probably 16-bit dos as well, otherwise it wouldn't be a dos in the first place, but a new OS)

> So PDOS/386 is a valid clone of 32-bit MSDOS.
Since the proof of the pudding is running 32-bit msdos binaries on PDOS/386 and vice versa, that is not easy to compare.

> It doesn't run 16-bit MSDOS programs, but it
> doesn't need to. It's enough to support the
> theoretical 32-bit MSDOS API.
As the compatibility test would involve interchangably running actual binaries, that is totally nonsense to me.

And IMHO a 32-bit MSDOS would have run 16-bit binaries, just like win9x and win2000 did. They were still too important at that time.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 143 users online (1 registered, 142 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum