Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

How to avoid SUCK-ASM ? (Miscellaneous)

posted by DOS386, 21.02.2008, 02:15

Rugxulo wrote:

> Then write only 16-bit code with it! Seriously, people lived
> with less than a 386 for quite a while. It's possible!!
YES, but I prefer having 32-bit also supported, and one ASM for both 16-bit and 32-bit code :-P

And, it was you who repeatedly boasted with the desperately useless xxx-64 support of whatever ("free"-PASCAL) in DOS (does it work for you in DOS ? benefits ?) forums - so what CPU's do you prefer ? :hungry:

rr wrote:

> Then you're doing something wrong.

NO.

> I don't need 386's instructions to code in assembly language.
OK, caring about 8086-compatibility where appropriate is good :-) , but still I prefer 32-bit DOS from stupid "16-bit MS-DOG subsystem" inside Loonix or Vi$ta, requiring (no problem ?) > 1 GHz CPU's to boot up in less than 1 hour and to be at least acceptably responsive :-(

And, with 8086 assembly you can compete against some poor 80286/80386 code written is some HLL, but not against Adobe Photosh** , WMP or Firefox running on quad-core xxx-64 at 4 GHz ;-)

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 108 users online (0 registered, 108 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum