DOS ain't dead

FTP ASCII vs binary "image" (Announce)

posted by mbbrutman , Washington, USA, 25.07.2010, 01:35

> > You mentioned Win32 version of FM, but said it was MS-DOS 7.1. Is it in
> > Windows, or is it running in DOS with some sort of compatibility layer?
>
> The latter of course - it uses HX's Win32 emulation. For FAR in DOS, see
>
> http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=3628
>
> > What networking stack is it using?
>
> HX's WSOCK32.DLL uses WATT32 - slightly modified.
>
> > Long filenames: mTCP checks the filename format and gives up. Get
> allows
> > you to special a local filename to save to. I'll look into DOSLFN.
>
> DOSLFN just implements the LFN API introduced with Windows 95. To support
> LFNs, use DOS int 21h, AX=716Ch to create/open files and fall back to the
> standard method if LFN isn't installed ( the DOS int returns ax=7100h then
> ).

Interesting. I've never done a performance comparison against WATT32 - I need to find out what the differences are. (A quick read of the web page did not shed much light.) Usually my code runs faster than WATTCP based code, so I'm curious as to what is going on. The two most performance sensitive parts of the code are the IP checksum and memcpy ... I avoid memcpy like the plague, but when disk I/O is performed there are many more memcpys being performed.

I'll look at DOS LFN support - that doesn't look too hard to implement.

---
mTCP - TCP/IP apps for vintage DOS machines!
http://www.brutman.com/mTCP

Complete thread:

• mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 21.01.2010, 18:06 (Announce)
  • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - Japheth, 22.01.2010, 09:47
    • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 22.01.2010, 16:56
      • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 07.02.2010, 16:35
    • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 03:22
      • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - Rugxulo, 14.03.2010, 03:56
        • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 15:01
          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 27.06.2010, 22:27
            • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Rugxulo, 28.06.2010, 06:30
              • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 28.06.2010, 12:05
                • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 28.06.2010, 14:22
                  • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 07:08
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 13:14
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:06
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 01.07.2010, 13:20
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:03
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 19:16
                          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 03.07.2010, 16:04
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 14.07.2010, 03:51
  • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 12:41
    • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 16:09
      • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:49
  • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 14:07
    • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 15:22
      • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:30
        • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 19:32
          • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 21:56
          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 23.07.2010, 07:27
            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 01:04
              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 12:12
                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 15:31
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 15:36
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 16:23
                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 16:57
                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 01:35
                        • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Rugxulo, 25.07.2010, 05:34
                          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 25.07.2010, 06:16
                            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 17:17
                              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03
                                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 26.07.2010, 03:11
                                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 02:53
                                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 27.07.2010, 03:31
                                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 03:40