DOS ain't dead - FTP ASCII vs binary "image"

FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues (Announce)

posted by DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03

> > This is the end of DOS support in WATCOM :-(
> Can you explain what you mean? I haven't seen anything that says Open
> Watcom is going to drop support for DOS, or any other OS.

See DGJPP. They will pretend DOS support but in fact support NTVDM (with great NTLFN support) only, see DGJPP. This is a fear so far, no final fact, but ... :-| Also they reportedly recently "fixed" WD on NTVDM, on FreeDOS it is and probably will remain unfixed :-(

2 of my > 1'000'000'000 ENOENT bug reports: 7918 and 4079

> You are comparing a full blown OS network stack to a DOS packet driver,
> and I'm willing to bet that the DOS packet driver is part of the problem

Connecting to ftp.openwatcom.org, port 21 ... 220 ProFTPD 1.3.0 Server (ftp.openwatcom.org) [216.55.181.205] USER anonymous 331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password. PASS user@provider.com 230 Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply. 227 Entering Passive Mode (216,55,181,205,239,144). TYPE I 200 Type set to I RETR manuals/current/guitool.pdf Connecting to 216.55.181.205, port 61328 ... 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for manuals/current/guitool.pdf (4852090 bytes) Closing connection...

Arachne automagically uses the BINARY mode and downloads the 4'852'090 Byte's in 50s (96 KiB/s) while mTCP FTP needs the image command and takes 150s to download the file (32 KiB/s). Apparently the Openwatcom server was slightly faster this time. ;-) And the biggest shocker: both files were identical. :surprised: Nevertheless, the "argument" about "full blown OS" is fully blown away - since Arachne is fast too. :-) I don't know how to find out how many packets got lost when using Arachne :-( Also, I didn't test the other PC yet :-(

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

Post reply

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