DOS ain't dead

This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS (Announce)

posted by DOS386, 31.03.2009, 04:03

Japheth wrote:

> AFAIU your TSR installs a simple int 24h handler on every int 21h call. The
> handler always returns al=3.

YES.

> My suggestion is to modify FDCONFIG.SYS:
> shell=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM /P /E:512
> shell=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM /F /P /E:512

Got:

SHELL=C:\BLAH\FREECOM.COM /F /E:512 /P:FDAUTO.BAT
REM "/F" disables AbortRetryFail
REM "/P" makes it permanent (no chance to EXIT)
REM "/E:512" increases enviriioment size to 512 bytes
REM            for some buggy stuff, but it doesn't really help

And it works ... Thanks However it works in FreeDOS only, not in EDR-DOS, so you reduced the usefulness of my TSR by factor 2 only.

Khusraw wrote:

> the one who asked for JLMs. If you want the brilliant DOS386 to contribute by

Again

rr wrote:

> PEBCAK

I will

Cm wrote:

> Stop using god damned hardcoded values for the size of all data and code
> parts of your program. This makes everything impossible to maintain and
> you can't write any large program.

This one isn't ...

> Stop hooking interrupts by modifying the IVT.

If you supply a reason why ...

> Comment your files better. F.e. I had to study the complete TSR (and evaluate
> some hardcoded values) before I understood what the second handler in
> the resident part is for.

See UI21DEB

> Free the environment if you don't need it anymore.

Maye good idea.

> Write the allocated memory block's segment into its MCB.
> This enables MEM to show the name of the resident part.

Done ! But MEM fails completely and [J]DEBUG reveals 2 letters only

> use the IBM Interrupt Sharing Protocol (IISP) when hooking permanent
> interrupt vectors (i.e. anything except Int22, Int23, Int24).

Benefit ?

> if they do so carefully, they'll fail because

you always find a risk

> The short version: This is bad hack which might work most of the time but could cause quirky behaviour of some programs.

YES.

> There's also the point that Int25, Int26 and I think some Int2F calls
> (NLSFUNC file open/lseek/read/close?) might cause Int24 errors.

See 10 lines above.

> Read in RBIL about Int2F.4A00, which is queried by the block device's code

Thanks, I'll check it. (actually INT $2F is not very inviting to me ... guess why)

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

Complete thread:

• This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - DOS386, 22.03.2009, 04:56 (Announce)
  • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Laaca, 22.03.2009, 09:11
  • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 22.03.2009, 11:36
  • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 22.03.2009, 20:05
    • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 22.03.2009, 21:57
      • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 19:01
        • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 25.03.2009, 19:10
          • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 20:09
            • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 26.03.2009, 20:43
              • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Khusraw, 27.03.2009, 08:29
                • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - RayeR, 28.03.2009, 03:17
        • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Khusraw, 25.03.2009, 22:08
  • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - rr, 22.03.2009, 21:53
  • Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - Japheth, 27.03.2009, 09:23
    • Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - ecm, 27.03.2009, 15:12
    • Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - Rugxulo, 27.03.2009, 17:12
    • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 31.03.2009, 04:03
      • Yes - Japheth, 31.03.2009, 10:53
      • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 31.03.2009, 23:10
        • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 05.04.2009, 04:21
          • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 05.04.2009, 09:27
            • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 07.04.2009, 05:05
              • This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 07.04.2009, 13:34
  • This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Arjay, 11.12.2009, 12:21