Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

In reply to \\\ Tom... (Developers)

posted by Ninho E-mail, 19.05.2011, 19:27

> I disagree.
I won't take offense, this point is disputable (and non essential).

>the keyboard is consumed by calling INT16.0/1/10/11 and NOT by
> calling the original at F000:E82E. as I want to feed *this* interface,

From a regular program, no doubt. But from a national keyboard driver ?
This is a BIOS extension [ideally, the French or whichever keyboard driver
would be in ROM, as it was indeed the case with certain good quality PC XTs
and ATs before "compatibles" became a commodity driven towards low
quality, low cost].

Looking at various ROM BIOSes, generally they /don't/ call down int 16
(why would they?). Instead they call the kb buffer management subroutines
directly, or else inline.

Why then would the user of our replacement keyboard driver have to be
subject to a random int 16 replacement inside of the BIOS int 9
processing, whereas a user who is able to use the (presumably) American
built-in doesn't ? Seems illogical to me.


> it's probably a good idea to call int16, and not the original f000:E82E
>
> If someone else hooks int16, it hopefully serves a useful service.

Yep, but a service to programs, not a service to the BIOS.

---
Ninho

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22753 Postings in 2120 Threads, 402 registered users (1 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum