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 Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 21.02.2008, 17:10

> YES, but I prefer having 32-bit also supported, and one ASM for both
> 16-bit and 32-bit code :-P
Not unreasonable.

> 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:
I don't know Pascal, but them adding support for Win64 was supposedly the first OSS compiler to do so. I thought that was impressive. No, I haven't tested the DOS port.

> > 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 :-(
Vista's desktop is much more responsive quicker than XP. Granted, Aero is pretty useless and a memory hog, but hey, people are gfx whores. ;-)

BTW, if you like 32-bit DOSes, have you tried ZDOS? (Me either.)

> 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 ;-)
You mean Mac Pro running 2 x 3 Ghz. Intel Xeon Core 2 "Penryn" Quad (But $3600?? Uh hell no.) :-P :-D :rotfl:

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 99 users online (0 registered, 99 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum