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 kerravon, Ligao, Free World North, 20.03.2024, 13:36

> > 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).
Is there a typo above? I don't understand regardless. A new platform or a new platform?

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

Sure - And that's a good point. Cygwin does indeed mean that "Windows is Unix" as much as Linux is. Given that you are considering source code compatibility.

> > 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)
As opposed to what? At what level is it reasonable to compare source code compatibility? If Linux has some syscall numbers that are different from Unix, and you use one of those syscall numbers in code instead of using a wrapper function - then does that make Linux cease to be Unix? Even at the source code level?

> > > 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.

I didn't say you said they were the same. I said you said the exact opposite.

> > 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.
Ok.

> > 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 .

pre-warp? That was OS/2 3.0 or something. It was only 16-bit OS/2 1.0 that only had a command-line, for a very short time.

> > 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)
Well this is a new definition. You are insisting on 16-bit now.

That's makes 32-bit DOS a contradiction in terms.

You can in fact call Windows 32-bit DOS using that definition.

> > 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.
Sure.

> > 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.
Sure.

> 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.
I don't think "importance to business" is a technical characteristic.

My question is about technical characteristics. Not commercial viability.

Regardless, I no longer know what you think "32-bit MSDOS" would actually be. As far as I know, Microsoft already did that (using your new definitions), and called it "OS/2" and also called it "Windows".

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 147 users online (0 registered, 147 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum