DOS ain't dead

lucho 14.10.2007, 18:41 @ lucho	Clarification Post reply
	> The source can easily be converted for the newer (and now free) MASM versions. ...if needed

rr

Berlin, Germany,
15.10.2007, 12:54

@ lucho

MASM 5.10

Post reply

> The source can easily be converted to the newer (and now free) MASM
> versions.

Latest MASM versions are not free! Microsoft prohibits MASM's use for developing open-source software.

---
Forum admin

lucho 15.10.2007, 18:23 @ rr	Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!? Post reply
	> Latest MASM versions are not free! Microsoft prohibits MASM's use for > developing open-source software. As far as I know, it's Steve Hutchinson (http://www.masm32.com/) who prohibits this, not Microsoft. Where you've read this and for which version?

rr

Berlin, Germany,
15.10.2007, 20:57

@ lucho

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

> > Latest MASM versions are not free! Microsoft prohibits MASM's use for
> > developing open-source software.
>
> As far as I know, it's Steve Hutchinson
> (http://www.masm32.com/) who prohibits this, not Microsoft.
> Where you've read this and for which version?

Sorry for the confusion! I mixed up those things. From the MASM 8.0 EULA: You may install and use one copy of the software on your device to design, develop and test your programs for non-commercial purposes. You may not use the software to develop programs you either intend to distribute for a fee or use to maintain your own business or IT systems.

---
Forum admin

DOS386

16.10.2007, 01:53

@ lucho

Open source development prohibited with MA$M32 ?!?

Post reply

> > Latest MASM versions are not free! Microsoft prohibits MASM's use for
> > developing open-source software.
>
> As far as I know, it's Steve Hutchinson
> (http://www.masm32.com/) who prohibits this, not Microsoft.
> Where you've read this and for which version?

IIRC this issue was discussed in other forum in the past and result has been documented in Dr-DOS Wiki by Japheth and me:

MA$M32: Mr. Hutch has an odd deal with M$, claims a "true freeware status" :confused: but at same time prohibits non-M$ and OS development - avoid it absolutely !

MASM ("ordinary" paid versions): no problem. Japheth reported to have a paid version - HX is absolutely legal :clap: OTOH allowing to compile HX with something else still would be cool ;-)

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

rr

Berlin, Germany,
16.10.2007, 09:51

@ DOS386

Open source development prohibited with MA$M32 ?!?

Post reply

> IIRC this issue was discussed in other forum in the past and result has
> been documented in Dr-DOS Wiki by Japheth and me:

What's the URL? ;-)

> MA$M32: Mr. Hutch has an odd deal with M$, claims a "true freeware status"
> :confused: but at same time prohibits non-M$ and OS development
> - avoid it absolutely !

And for some really nasty things read the alt.lang.asm newsgroup. :-|

---
Forum admin

Steve

US,
16.10.2007, 13:35

@ lucho

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

> > Latest MASM versions are not free! Microsoft prohibits MASM's use for
> > developing open-source software.
>
> As far as I know, it's Steve Hutchinson
> (http://www.masm32.com/) who prohibits this, not Microsoft.
> Where you've read this and for which version?

"Any person, party or entity that undertakes any form of legal action whatsoever against the project, its authors, the owners and/or copyright holders of any software contained in the project is licenced to completely and unconditionally remove the software from their computer(s) and nothing else."

I will swear as a matter of law and English grammar that this is garbage, especially "licenced to completely and unconditionally remove the software from their computer(s) and nothing else." This implies that 1) a license could be required to remove software from a computer, and 2) that software might be removed from something other than a computer, but is not allowed to be, or maybe, not 2), but 3) only software and nothing else can be removed from a computer (which means, don't remove that old dead hard drive, etc.). Total nonsense. (I would guesss that they meant that anyone who brings legal action against them is not permitted to use MASM, and must remove it from computers - but they didn't say that, and what is not said is not binding.)

As a practical matter, in present company, this is a killer: "You cannot use the MASM32 Project to write software for Non-Microsoft Operating Systems." But how could they prove a violation? If a prog works under MS-DOS, but also under FreeDOS, etc., then their only remedies would be to teach programmers how to 1) write to undocumented and unique features of MS-DOS, and 2) break other OSes. However, the truth is, they will not do 1), and if they tried 2), they would face legal action from owners and users of the other DOSes.

This is not on solid legal ground: "The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software or any other project under any form of licence that requires the user of the MASM32 project to surrender the rights they are afforded under the MASM32 licence. In particular the MASM32 licence completely excludes projects licenced under the GNU organisation's published GPL licence and/or variants."

This turns "rights" into requirements. It is true that some other licenses do not permit charging money, but, and this is important, it is not required by law that anyone charge money for anything - not even in the most capitalist of countries. It is as legal to give away software for free as it is to give away any other property, including actual money.

If a contract (what a software license really is) that requires giving something away for free is entered into voluntarily, then that contract is legally defensible. In a US court, all a clever lawyer has to say is "What do you mean, my client can't give software away? What's next - can't invite friends to lunch without charging them for the food because it's cooked on a MASM stove?" Case over, friends eat for free.

Garbage.

Japheth

Germany (South),
16.10.2007, 19:31

@ Steve

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

There is possibly a misconception in the second part:

> This turns "rights" into requirements. It is true that some other licenses
> do not permit charging money, but, and this is important, it is not
> required by law that anyone charge money for anything - not even in the
> most capitalist of countries. It is as legal to give away software for
> free as it is to give away any other property, including actual money.

the MASM32 license talks about "Open Source", not about "Freeware". So you can charge people for using your software or not, that doesn't matter, but you must not reveal the source.

Sounds slightly less absurd, but still "strange".

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

16.10.2007, 19:44

@ Steve

Steve Hutchesson's weird "MASM32" licence

Post reply

> The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software or any
> other project under any form of licence that requires the user of the MASM32
> project to surrender the rights they are afforded under the MASM32 licence.

I've always wondered what are these "rights afforded under the MASM32 licence" that he means, which would be "surrendered" by the open source licence?!

I wouldn't dare to ask Hutchesson about that :-(

Rugxulo

Usono,
17.10.2007, 01:33

@ lucho

Steve Hutchesson's weird "MASM32" licence

Post reply

> > The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software or any
> > other project under any form of licence that requires the user of the
> MASM32
> > project to surrender the rights they are afforded under the MASM32
> licence.
>
> I've always wondered what are these "rights afforded under the MASM32
> licence" that he means, which would be "surrendered" by the open source
> licence?!
>
> I wouldn't dare to ask Hutchesson about that :-(

lucho, the little I do know about you is that both you and I definitely don't understand some of the cryptic licenses in use today (and this is one of the more oddball cases, too). This MASM32 one is very very strange, stupid, self-defeating, paranoid, and just incomprehensible. I know MASM is a semi-decent assembler, BUT I prefer others:

* FASM -- very popular but no .OBJ support, no linker needed, almost no cmdline use (by design), very fast, runs on 9 OSes, x86-64 since 1.64, various official and unofficial IDEs, auto-optimizes encodings, FOSS
* NASM -- very popular, supports .OBJ (among a billion others), finally has x86-64, can optimize encodings, LGPL
* YASM -- very popular NASM fork, no .OBJ support but supports Intel or AT&T/GAS syntax (plus x86-64 since a while), auto-optimizes encodings, mostly BSD
* Octasm -- small, fast, supports DOS or OctaOS, can run snippets from cmdline, partial ELF reloc read support, up to SSE3, only outputs raw binary (and/or optional simple debug info text .SYM), auto-optimizes encodings, FOSS
* LZASM -- supports only TASM Ideal mode, up to SSE4, outputs .OBJ only, optimizes LEA (like MASM), closed src

All of these run on pure DOS w/ DPMI support (so no worries about memory limits).

---
Know your limits.h

sol

29.10.2007, 17:12

@ Steve

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

While you might have some grounds on the fact that the wording may a little bit confusing, Steve Hutchesson has every right to make you do this.

In fact, I could write a license that states that you're only permitted to download my software while naked, and should you ever dress you must delete it.

Basically, the software is not free at all, but instead of paying for it, you must comply with the terms and conditions --- you're agreeing, when you download it, to all the terms of the license.

You can be sued for breaking copyright law if you're not in compliance.

Rugxulo

Usono,
30.10.2007, 05:23

@ sol

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

> While you might have some grounds on the fact that the wording may a little
> bit confusing, Steve Hutchesson has every right to make you do this.

But what is the actual advantage for prohibiting open source software with MASM? I mean, one way I can use MASM, and the other way I can't. Neither way hurts them. In fact, that's what programming tools are for: to create and share stuff. So, this boggles the mind. Oh well, less MASM users, more NASM/FASM users as a result. If ?? (whoever) doesn't see that as their loss, then too bad for them.

sol

30.10.2007, 16:55

@ Rugxulo

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

> But what is the actual advantage for prohibiting open source software with
> MASM? I mean, one way I can use MASM, and the other way I can't. Neither
> way hurts them. In fact, that's what programming tools are for: to create
> and share stuff. So, this boggles the mind. Oh well, less MASM users, more
> NASM/FASM users as a result. If ?? (whoever) doesn't see that as their
> loss, then too bad for them.

Open source does hurt Microsoft - in fact, it's Microsoft's largest threat. Microsoft can't fight against 'free' - there's no company behind it to threaten, sue, buy out or make big deals with. The software can simply be forked and continued.

While Microsoft's software gets filled with anti-consumer features like DRM and slows down, open source software tends to be getting better.

What do you think happens when someone switches to something like OpenOffice? Even if it's a dozen people a day --- they don't tend to switch back. They get over their fears and say "hrm, wow, this is actually pretty good...and it didn't cost me a thing."

If it wasn't worth using free over buying MS Office --- no loss, they didn't spend a thing. In a year when "omg brand new OpenOffice 3.0" comes out, they'll try it again and maybe permanently switch. Microsoft has no way of attracting these people back, unless they offer their products free, which doesn't work for them.

Rugxulo

Usono,
31.10.2007, 00:37

@ sol

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Post reply

> If it wasn't worth using free over buying MS Office --- no loss, they
> didn't spend a thing. In a year when "omg brand new OpenOffice 3.0" comes
> out, they'll try it again and maybe permanently switch. Microsoft has no
> way of attracting these people back, unless they offer their products
> free, which doesn't work for them.

Rumor was that MS might actually make Works adware. Yeah, I know, you don't care, just FYI. ;-)

lucho 31.10.2007, 20:24 @ sol	Open source development NOT prohibited with MASM! Post reply
	Come on - as we clarified, Microsoft doesn't prohibit open source development with MASM, just development of commercial products. It's Steve Hutchesson who prohibits open source development with his MASM32, but it's only for Windows (it adds sets of include files, libraries, etc. which are useful only for Windows). As Tom Ehlert would say, "End of story".

Jack 15.10.2007, 18:51 @ rr	If So, DELETE Your "Links". Post reply
	Like Lucho, I have not seen any "prohibitions" by Gates & Co. against using the MASM assemblers for open-source software. If you believe such prohibitions do exist, you are welcome to "Do the right thing" and DELETE all links from your website to drivers I have written beginning with QHIMEM/QCACHE/QCDROM, as those drivers were all assembled using V5.1 MASM.

lucho

15.10.2007, 19:07

@ Jack

If So, DELETE Your "Links".

Post reply

> If you believe such prohibitions do exist, you are welcome to "Do the
> right thing" and DELETE all links from your website to drivers I have
> written beginning with QHIMEM/QCACHEQCDROM, as those drivers were all
> assembled using V5.1 MASM.

But in this case he'll have to delete also his links for Japheth's HX: it's also developed for MASM! (See http://www.japheth.de/HX.html#hxsrc)

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Robert is wrong to claim that Microsoft prohibits open source development with MASM :-)

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.10.2007, 19:56

@ lucho

don't worry

Post reply

> But in this case he'll have to delete also his links for Japheth's HX:
> it's also developed for MASM! (See
> http://www.japheth.de/HX.html#hxsrc)
>
> Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Robert is wrong to claim that
> Microsoft prohibits open source development with MASM :-)

I believe the "not for non-Windows OSes" clause only pertains to the latest free MASMs (8.0? 9.0?), not any of the previous ones that you may have bought in years past. (Of course, I personally like FASMD, but your mileage may vary.)

---
Know your limits.h

Japheth

Germany (South),
15.10.2007, 23:02

@ lucho

If So, DELETE Your "Links".

Post reply

> Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Robert is wrong to claim that
> Microsoft prohibits open source development with MASM :-)

Yes. This confusion is due to Mr. Hutchesson, who repeatedly claimed such nonsense in his forum and in newsgroups (ALA).

---
MS-DOS forever!

Jack 15.10.2007, 20:22 @ rr	Still "Linked", I See! Post reply
	I agree with Rugxulo's post, re: MASM "prohibitions" applying only to its new releases. I would especially like to read such prohibitions against my 17-year-old V5.1 MASM, released at a time when the idea of open-source was largely UNHEARD of. I also note that the "links" to QHIMEM/QCACHE/QCDROM, and later V5.1 MASM work by me, are still present on this website ...

Japheth

Germany (South),
15.10.2007, 14:55

@ lucho

MASM 5.10

Post reply

> The source can easily be converted to the newer (and now free) MASM
> versions.

it's "easy" for those being very familiar with MASM and its quirks, but "beginners" may have some difficulties. One Example:

btr [bx+IOF-@],bl

According to Intel docs the second operand must be 16/32 bit. So using BL is somewhat confusing. MASM v6 won't accept BL.

No big issue, of course.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 15.10.2007, 18:18 @ Japheth	MASM 5.10 Post reply
	> `btr [bx+IOF-@],bl` > > According to Intel docs the second operand must be 16/32 bit. So using BL > is somewhat confusing. MASM v6 won't accept BL. In fact, MASM 5.10 silently translates in the object file the above instruction to `btr word ptr 0x4a[bx],bx`

Japheth

Germany (South),
16.10.2007, 14:06

@ lucho

MASM 5.10

Post reply

> In fact, MASM 5.10 silently translates in the object file the above
> instruction to
>
> btr word ptr 0x4a[bx],bx

Yes, MASM "silently " generates the opcode which is expected ... not that surprisingly, since an opcode which uses a 8bit register as second operand simply doesn't exist.

On another occasion, however, MASM v5.1 "silently" generates code which most likely isn't exactly what was expected:

125E 33 DB I_Term: xor bx,bx ;Zero BX-reg. for below. 1260 80 7F 0A 20 cmp [bx+DvrNam-@].lb,' ' ;Is driver "name" valid? 1264 75 0A jne s I_SetN ;Yes, eliminate any spaces. 1266 C7 47 0A 4455 mov [bx+DvrNam-@],"DVDU" ;Set our default "name". 126B C7 47 0E 2031 mov [bx+DvrNam+4-@]," 1" 1270 BE 0F79 I_SetN: mov si,(TTLName+8-@) ;Set driver "name" in title.

Here the opcodes at 1266 and 126B will move a WORD, but I bet it is expected that a DWORD is moved instead.

I detected this issue because I tried to assemble UIDE.ASM with Open Watcom's WASM. Although WASM is far away from MASM v6 compatibility, it should - almost - work with v5.1 sources. With UIDE source, WASM has 2 problems:

1. A label followed by a DB pseudo-code in the very same line (EndIO):

pop ax ;Reload returned I-O error code. stc ;Set carry again to denote error. EndIO: db 0EAh ;Return to driver "exit" logic. dw (Exit-@) @RtnSeg dw 0 ;(Driver segment address, Init set). db 0 ;(Unused alignment "filler").

is perfectly legal with MASM v5.1, but v6.x complains and WASM generates a wrong opcde. Since it doesn't cost much, one might consider to separate such lines:

pop ax ;Reload returned I-O error code. stc ;Set carry again to denote error. EndIO: db 0EAh ;Return to driver "exit" logic. dw (Exit-@) @RtnSeg dw 0 ;(Driver segment address, Init set). db 0 ;(Unused alignment "filler").

2. WASM doesnt like the brackets around "short":

s equ <short> ;Default conditional jumps to "short".

This is a WASM bug. Adding a comment for WASM users might be useful.

After these "trivial" adjustments, WASM/WLINK generated a perfectly valid UIDE.SYS.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

16.10.2007, 17:44

@ Japheth

MASM 5.10 and WASM

Post reply

> 1266 C7 47 0A 4455 mov [bx+DvrNam-@],"DVDU" ;Set our default "name".
> 126B C7 47 0E 2031 mov [bx+DvrNam+4-@]," 1"
>
> Here the opcodes at 1266 and 126B will move a WORD, but I bet it is
> expected that a DWORD is moved instead.

Yes - fortunately, DvrNam already contains the same static string "UDVD1 " :-)

> After these "trivial" adjustments, WASM/WLINK generated a perfectly valid
> UIDE.SYS.

Very good! So WASM isn't just an "unusable toy", but a perfectly usable tool, albeit poorly documented...

Michal Necasek will be glad to hear that! :-)

Japheth

Germany (South),
16.10.2007, 18:06

@ lucho

MASM 5.10 and WASM

Post reply

> Very good! So WASM isn't just an "unusable toy", but a
> perfectly usable tool, albeit poorly documented...

No, my points mentioned in the link are still valid, the first one now even more after this "label + db in one line"-error has been detected. If you have to scrutinize every byte the assembler has generated I wouldn't call such a tool "perfectly usable".

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 16.10.2007, 18:41 @ Japheth	WASM Post reply
	> No, my points mentioned in the link are still valid, the first one now > even more after this "label + db in one line"-error has been detected. If > you have to scrutinize every byte the assembler has generated I wouldn't > call such a tool "perfectly usable". Yes, still buggy, but "imperfectly usable"

Jack

16.10.2007, 16:11

@ Japheth

NOT Responsible For Other Assemblers!!

Post reply

> Adding a comment for WASM users might be useful.

Another "non-issue", by one who has ADMITTED he enjoys being the
cause of only TROUBLE, as anyone can read here:

<http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=914>

I am not the "babysitter" for NASM, TASM, WASM, or "WhateverSM".
For 17 years, V5.1 MASM has been my assembler. People who wish
some other assembler must take RESPONSIBILITY for this decision.
If that assembler is "not compatible" with previously acceptable
assembly-language standards, there is an easy and fast solution:
Use V5.1 MASM instead.

lucho

17.10.2007, 08:47

@ Jack

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C

Post reply

> For 17 years, V5.1 MASM has been my assembler. People who wish
> some other assembler must take RESPONSIBILITY for this decision.
> If that assembler is "not compatible" with previously acceptable
> assembly-language standards, there is an easy and fast solution:
> Use V5.1 MASM instead.

If there was no fear of using MASM V5.10, FreeDOS could have had a much better kernel, written entirely in Assembler, with built-in LFN support, which just needs fixing some bugs and further development to potentially become the best - RxDOS by Mike Podanoffsky (who has also written the book "Dissecting DOS").

Alas, what FreeDOS got instead was DOS-C by Pat Villani (who has also written a book for his kernel), written in "C" initially for the Motorola MC68000 CPU, later ported to x86 without knowledge of the undocumented internal structures of DOS, with its famous "f-nodes" instead of the System File Tables (SFT).

All this because of the free-software / open-source purism of some open source adopters!

Is it a so big crime to search for MASM510.ZIP and get this old but still rather useful rusty junk?

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 10:06

@ lucho

MASM 5.10? No!

Post reply

> If there was no fear of using MASM V5.10, FreeDOS could have had a much
> better kernel, written entirely in Assembler, with built-in LFN support,
> which just needs fixing some bugs and further development to potentially
> become the best - RxDOS by Mike Podanoffsky (who has also written the book
> "Dissecting DOS").
>
> Alas, what FreeDOS got instead was DOS-C by Pat Villani (who has also
> written a book for his kernel), written in "C" initially for the Motorola
> MC68000 CPU, later ported to x86 without knowledge of the undocumented
> internal structures of DOS, with its famous "f-nodes" instead of the
> System File Tables (SFT).

FreeDOS does what it is supposed to do, running DOS software sufficiently fast and stable. You're fighting phantoms.

> Is it a so big crime to search for MASM510.ZIP and get this old but still
> rather useful rusty junk?

No, but it is disrespect for other people's intellectual property, or, in other, slightly old-fashioned words, DISHONORABLE.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

17.10.2007, 12:24

@ Japheth

DOS-C, RxDOS, EDR-DOS, MASM 5.10

Post reply

> FreeDOS does what it is supposed to do, running DOS software sufficiently fast and stable. You're fighting phantoms.

Or, like Don Quixotte, windmills?! ;-)

Still, RxDOS could have been a much better and faster kernel of FreeDOS. Maybe in the future EDR-DOS could be such a kernel, if there is no fear of using it there.

> > Is it a so big crime to search for MASM510.ZIP and get this old but still rather useful rusty junk?
>
> No, but it is disrespect for other people's intellectual property, or, in
> other, slightly old-fashioned words, DISHONORABLE.

Sorry, but I can't imagine how this can be so in this case.

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 12:54

@ lucho

Quantity issues

Post reply

> Still, RxDOS could have been a much better and faster kernel of FreeDOS.
> Maybe in the future EDR-DOS could be such a kernel, if there is no fear of
> using it there.

Well, it's shareware, but the true "problem" is:

99% of DOS users run DOS in a VM under Windows/Linux and dont care about speed
0,9% run DOS - sometimes - natively, and are happy with its speed

The rest of 0,1% sits in front of their DOS machines, running speed benchmarks and counting the free available memory. These 0,1% are you, Jack and Udo.

:-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

17.10.2007, 13:29

@ Japheth

99% of DOS users run DOS in a Virtual Machine ?!?

Post reply

> 99% of DOS users run DOS in a VM under Windows/Linux and dont care about
> speed 0,9% run DOS - sometimes - natively, and are happy with its speed
>
> The rest of 0,1% sits in front of their DOS machines, running speed
> benchmarks and counting the free available memory. These 0,1% are you,
> Jack and Udo.
>
> :-D

Good joke, but how did you figure out the percentages?! Do you have statistics?!
If they're really correct (which I doubt!), it'd mean that the real DOS is dead!

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 14:19

@ lucho

99% of DOS users run DOS in a Virtual Machine ?!?

Post reply

> Good joke, but how did you figure out the percentages?! Do you have
> statistics?!

my estimates (DosEmu counts as VM, NTVDM and DosBox don't count as DOS).

> If they're really correct (which I doubt!), it'd mean that the real DOS is
> dead!

Ok, if the numbers are not 99/0.9/0.1 but 96/3.6/0.4, would this mean that DOS is alive?

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 17.10.2007, 14:32 @ Japheth	Real DOS is still alive! Post reply
	> Ok, if the numbers are not 99/0.9/0.1 but 96/3.6/0.4, would this mean that DOS is alive? Of course! 4 times more alive

Khusraw

17.10.2007, 17:20

@ Japheth

Quantity issues

Post reply

> 99% of DOS users run DOS in a VM under Windows/Linux and dont care about
> speed
> 0,9% run DOS - sometimes - natively, and are happy with its speed

Please quote your source of information or it could be interpreted that you are a misinformer and a liar. OTOH those "0,9%" as you say, are happy as long as they don't know something better. When they will know, they will discover new forms of "happines" and will forget the "happines" of today.

Yes, I know. Your post was just a joke, an example of your "intelligent" sarcasm. But you are too repetitive in your attitudes and stances. You are incapable to bring something new, so it's time for you to be disposed without any semnificative loss. Be sure that no one will cry after you. :-D

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 18:21

@ Khusraw

Hello

Post reply

> Please quote your source of information or it could be interpreted that
> you are a misinformer and a liar.

Please feel free to think what you like!

> Yes, I know. Your post was just a joke, an example of your "intelligent"
> sarcasm.

Where did you detect "sarcasm"?

> You are incapable to bring something new, ...

This might be true. Old dogs ...

> Be sure that no one will cry after you. :-D

Good to know, but how did you manage to get a mandate to speak for all members of this board?

---
MS-DOS forever!

Khusraw 17.10.2007, 18:31 @ Japheth	Hello Post reply
	> Where did you detect "sarcasm"? I didn't detect, but this was your intention. > This might be true. Old dogs ... To be incapable to bring something new is not a question related to age... > Good to know, but how did you manage to get a mandate to speak for all > members of this board? I assumed that the members of this board are thoughtful. I must be ashamed because of my presupposition?

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 19:12

@ Khusraw

Hello

Post reply

> I didn't detect, but this was your intention.

Ok. You somehow felt that my intention was sarcasm. <irony>I understand</irony>.

> > Good to know, but how did you manage to get a mandate to speak for all
> > members of this board?
>
> I assumed that the members of this board are thoughtful. I must be ashamed
> because of my presupposition?

Ok, you spoke for others without mandate. That's impolite in any case and yes, you should consider to be ashamed. It doesn't matter to what extend you regard your opinion as a matter of course.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho 17.10.2007, 19:33 @ Japheth	Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics Post reply
	> Ok, you spoke for others without mandate. That's impolite in any case and > yes, you should consider to be ashamed. It doesn't matter to what extend > you regard your opinion as a matter of course. If 3 people asynchronously say you the same thing, it's time to synchronise to it

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 19:55

@ lucho

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

Post reply

> If 3 people asynchronously say you the same thing, it's time to
> synchronise to it

No. You might know the saying about the 1 million flies who cannot be wrong when ... ?

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

17.10.2007, 20:26

@ Japheth

The German proverb about flies and something censored twice

Post reply

> > If 3 people asynchronously say you the same thing, it's time to synchronise to it
>
> No. You might know the saying about the 1 million flies who cannot be wrong when ... ?

Yes, I know this German proverb from Tom Ehlert (but only in English, so it may be interesting to read it in original - I mean in German). However I'm sure that you understood me, even if I may not have said it in the best possible way :-)

tom 17.10.2007, 20:33 @ lucho	The German proverb about flies and something censored twice Post reply
	Maybe everybody stops here. Please come back to technical issues (and please not the "C" vs. Assembler either) Tom

lucho

17.10.2007, 20:55

@ tom

Efficiency still counts!

Post reply

> Maybe everybody stops here.
>
> Please come back to technical issues (and please not the "C" vs. Assembler either)
>
> Tom

Yes, you're right. So, what was the main idea? That the Jack's drivers are the exact opposition of what is known as Bloatware. Bloatware can also be written in Assembler (e.g. Award BIOS etc.) and efficient programs can also be written in C (e.g. 4DOS, MASM and many others). So the issue is not just C vs. Assembly. It's simply that efficiency still counts. It's so obvious that it doesn't need proof. Or if it does, I can't imagine a better proof than Jack's drivers themselves!

The famous German proverb about the 1 million flies and the censored matter can be applied also to the majority who runs DOS only through a virtual machine ;-)

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 21:08

@ lucho

The German proverb about flies and something censored twice

Post reply

> However
> I'm sure that you understood me, even if I may not have said it in the
> best possible way :-)

No, sorry!

1. you mentioned 3 people, but I detected 2 only (you and Mr. Kushrow)
2. you brought ethics onto the table, which was totally unrelated to the "smalltalk" we three had before.

So please explain what you were talking about!

there's no censorship as long as the forum rules are complied.

---
MS-DOS forever!

Khusraw 17.10.2007, 21:33 @ Japheth	Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics Post reply
	> No. You might know the saying about the 1 million flies who cannot be > wrong when ... ? As you are a fan of words of wisdom, please translate for yourself this Romanian stance "Prostul daca nu-i fudul parca nu e prost destul". Yes, we must post exclusively in English, but rr could wait until you read this.

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 21:41

@ Khusraw

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

Post reply

> As you are a fan of words of wisdom, please translate for yourself this

Sorry, my interest is low! Translate and post it again if you really want.

---
MS-DOS forever!

Khusraw

17.10.2007, 19:48

@ Japheth

Hello

Post reply

> Ok. You somehow felt that my intention was sarcasm. <irony>I
> understand</irony>.

Even now you try to be sarcastic..., but you couldn't, because you lack any sense of mature humour. Your jokes are high-school quality. I'm sorry for you.

> Ok, you spoke for others without mandate. That's impolite in any case and
> yes, you should consider to be ashamed. It doesn't matter to what extend
> you regard your opinion as a matter of course.

I present my excuses to all who impolitely were made "thoughtful" by me.

DOS386

24.10.2007, 02:41

@ Japheth

Quantity issues

Post reply

> but the true "problem" is: 99% of DOS users
> run DOS in a VM under Windows/Linux and dont care about speed

Indeed :crying:

> The rest of 0,1% sits in front of their DOS machines, running speed benchmarks
> and counting the free available memory. These 0,1% are you, Jack and Udo.

+ me :lol3:

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

Jack 17.10.2007, 13:31 @ lucho	PRIDE Issues!! Post reply
	I am PROUD to be among your "0.1% group", along with Lucho and Udo, who still value something YOU must never have HEARD of: EFFICIENCY!!!

Jack

17.10.2007, 20:09

@ lucho

Anyone Want a 1.75K UIDEJR??

Post reply

Lucho and Khusraw, it is perhaps time for the three of us to leave Joseph
Heller's "General Scheisskopf" alone, in his rantings at others, and just
proceed with more productive things ...

I now have it confirmed, by Lucho and another associate, that the "model"
for the next UIDE driver works fine. While I consider its next upgrade,
it COULD be released now ...

Is anyone interested in a UIDEJR, "junior UIDE", which caches up to 200-MB
using HMA space (the current driver goes up to 255-MB), BUT which requires
only 1728 bytes of upper-memory for such a cache?? All other features of
UIDEJR would be the same, including up to a 1-GB cache using upper-memory.

It may be nice to learn if a "1.75K Caching Driver" can benefit DOS users.

DOS386

24.10.2007, 02:58

@ lucho

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C FreeDOS kernel ASM vs C

Post reply

> Use V5.1 MASM instead.

The code should be tiny enough to get adjusted to a more modern ASM standard ;-)

> If there was no fear of using MASM V5.10, FreeDOS could have had a much
> better kernel, written entirely in Assembler

Indeed, an ASM FreeDOS kernel would be much better :-| But "unfortunately", MASM 5.1 is not the only or unique ASM compiler in the universe ;-)

> which just needs fixing some bugs and further development to potentially
> become the best - RxDOS by Mike Podanoffsky

Nice source ... just doesn't compile with FASM ...

> Alas, what FreeDOS got instead was DOS-C by Pat Villani (who has also
> All this because of the free-software / open-source purism of some

It works ... the performance is suboptimal, there are some bugs, doesn't compile with FASM and I can't contribute to the kernel ... not ideal, but no better choice by now :-|

> Is it a so big crime to search for MASM510.ZIP and get this old
> but still rather useful rusty junk?

Depends. If you do it in "secret" for testing purposes and release a modernized NASM/FASM source or add MASM 5.1-syntax to YASM at the end - OK. But SORRY but copyright and legality is beyond discussability for me - there should be no room for piracy in the DOS community ...

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

Japheth

Germany (South),
24.10.2007, 15:08

@ DOS386

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C FreeDOS kernel ASM vs C

Post reply

> The code should be tiny enough to get adjusted to a more modern ASM
> standard ;-)

there is no such thing like a "more modern ASM standard"!

There are some not very convincing ASM dialects implemented by NASM, FASM, ...

> Indeed, an ASM FreeDOS kernel would be much better :-|

Using ASM might improve (=decrease) the FreeDOS kernel size by 1 or 2 kB, but speed most likely won't be affected significantly.

> It works ... the performance is suboptimal, there are some bugs, doesn't
> compile with FASM and I can't contribute to the kernel ... not ideal, but
> no better choice by now :-|

before people let you contribute to something as important as the FreeDOS kernel you first have to prove that you can write something useful at all, not just OS detectors. :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

24.10.2007, 15:57

@ Japheth

RxDOS. ASM vs C kernels. Cluster alocation of FreeDOS

Post reply

> Using ASM might improve (=decrease) the FreeDOS kernel size by 1 or 2 kB,

RxDOS is significantly smaller, and it even supports long file names "natively".

> but speed most likely won't be affected significantly.

Among the 6 kernels I tested, there is one written mostly in C (ROM-DOS) that is faster than another one written entirely in Assembler (PTS-DOS). On the other hand, the top 3 fastest kernels are all written entirely in Assembler, and the slowest one (FreeDOS) - mostly in C. So, speed depends also very much on the implemented algorithms.

This message by Tom examines a possible reason for the slow writing speed of FreeDOS - its algorithm for cluster allocation.

DOS386

25.10.2007, 06:41
(edited by DOS386, 25.10.2007, 07:23)

@ Japheth

MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects"

Post reply

> there is no such thing like a "more modern ASM standard"

> are some not very convincing ASM dialects implemented by NASM, FASM

Old dogs ... :lol3:

Believe or not, for whatever reason, all successful assemblers in recent 10 years (FASM, NASM, YASM, LZASM, even the famous ROO's-ASM :lol3: implement the "new" NASM/FASM syntax, uhmm LZASM uses "at least" TASM IDEAL, while the 2 attempts to create a 100% MASM compatible assembler both (WASM & Po-ASM) ended in an unusable toy, as pointed by a person understanding ASM programming and MASM syntax like nobody else in the universe :confused:

I of course appreciate useful development of Jack, M. Devore, you, Mike. P. and all the others using MASM, nevertheless, the frequent need of MASM (proprietary and originating from M$, the company who killed DOS) is a more than negligible problem of DOS ... that should be solved the one (adjust the code) or other way (a free assembler usable to compile the stuff as-is). :-|

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

Japheth

Germany (South),
25.10.2007, 07:55

@ DOS386

MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects"

Post reply

> Believe or not, for whatever reason, all successful assemblers in recent
> 10 years (FASM, NASM, YASM, LZASM, even the famous ROO's-ASM :lol3:
> implement the "new" NASM/FASM syntax, uhmm LZASM uses "at least" TASM
> IDEAL, while the 2 attempts to create a 100% MASM compatible assembler
> both (WASM & Po-ASM) ended in an unusable toy

You're not totally up-to-date. The entry in the Guide has recently been changed from unusable to mostly unusable.

> I of course appreciate useful development of Jack, M. Devore, you, Mike.
> P. and all the others using MASM, nevertheless, the frequent need of MASM
> (proprietary and originating from M$, the company who killed DOS) is a
> more than negligible problem of DOS ... that should be solved the one
> (adjust the code) or other way (a free assembler usable to compile the
> stuff as-is). :-|

Very good. Please either help the YASM guys, who just wait for someone implementing MASM support, or improve WASM! Should be an easy job for someone with strong motivation. I can't wait to test the result. :hungry:

---
MS-DOS forever!

Rugxulo Usono, 26.10.2007, 02:32 @ Japheth	MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects" Post reply
	> Very good. Please either help the YASM guys, who just wait for someone > implementing MASM support, or improve WASM! Should be an easy job for > someone with strong motivation. I can't wait to test the result.

Rugxulo

Usono,
26.10.2007, 04:15

@ DOS386

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

Post reply

> It works ... the performance is suboptimal, there are some bugs, doesn't
> compile with FASM and I can't contribute to the kernel ... not ideal, but
> no better choice by now :-|

I think you're overexaggerating a bit here. True, there are a few bugs, but most things work. Rome wasn't built in a day. It's more a problem convincing people not to hate DOS than it is to actually fix / improve it.

BTW, the real reason I'm responding to this is because you can indeed contribute to the kernel (unless you meant because of your lack of C skills, but that can be remedied ...):

ke2007sep15-src.zip
ow17a286.uha (+ UNUHARCD to unpack it)

That's all you need to be able to recompile it.

DOS386

26.10.2007, 08:18

@ Rugxulo

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

Post reply

> I think you're overexaggerating a bit here. True, there are a few bugs,
> but most things work. Rome wasn't built in a day.

NO. I'm the last one who would kill FreeDOS with "unusably buggy" claims - yes, it works for me, and yes, there are bugs, see other thread.

> can indeed contribute to the kernel (unless you meant because of your lack of C skills

16-bit RM C is indeed horrible to me :no:

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

Rugxulo

Usono,
27.10.2007, 14:20

@ DOS386

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

Post reply

> NO. I'm the last one who would kill FreeDOS with "unusably buggy" claims -
> yes, it works for me, and yes, there are bugs, see other thread.

I just meant that it works with more than it doesn't work with. And, AFAIK, RxDOS is buggier and wimpier. Even DR-DOS and EDR-DOS (supposedly "stable") have bugs. It's complicated work supporting backwards compatibility. But sometimes that's easier / wiser than throwing it all out and starting from scratch. Anyways, I'm not sure what license RxDOS really is, so I dunno how feasible it would be to fork it.

> 16-bit RM C is indeed horrible to me :no:

Well, there are too many ways of doing the same thing, and a lot of it isn't obvious (I dunno where it's documented). So yes, it can be ridiculously confusing.

lucho

27.10.2007, 17:35

@ Rugxulo

RxDOS

Post reply

> I just meant that it works with more than it doesn't work with. And, AFAIK, RxDOS is buggier and wimpier.

I don't know the word "wimpy" but at the time DOS-C was chosen to be the FreeDOS kernel, it was probably "buggier" than RxDOS. RxDOS has a few known bugs and probably more unknown but it's hard to tell whether it's "buggier" than FreeDOS.

> Anyways, I'm not sure what license RxDOS really is, so I dunno how feasible it would be to fork it.

GPL, as you can see from http://sourceforge.net/projects/rxdos/.
Not to fork it, but to continue its development. Alas, it's probably too late...

Rugxulo

Usono,
28.10.2007, 02:01

@ lucho

RxDOS

Post reply

> GPL, as you can see from
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/rxdos/.
> Not to fork it, but to continue its development. Alas, it's probably too
> late...

Not too late, how could it be? (And BTW, the SourceForge page doesn't have any files, even in CVS!) Here's the latest RxDOS I know of: http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/freedos/unofficial/rxdos.old/

Maybe we should test it and see what doesn't work?? At least then we could compile a compatibility list.

DOS386

28.10.2007, 02:09

@ Rugxulo

RxDOS | C vs ASM | purism | empty RX at SF ?

Post reply

> I don't know the word "wimpy" but at the time DOS-C was chosen to be the
> FreeDOS kernel, it was probably "buggier" than RxDOS.

Maybe ... first I wonder whether RX was already available at that time under the GPL ... is YES, then DOS-C was chosen because of a sort of C-purism only ?

> (And BTW, the SourceForge page doesn't have any files, even in CVS!)

I did find them :clap:

> Maybe we should test it and see what doesn't work??
> At least then we could compile a compatibility list.

See www.drdos.org

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

lucho

28.10.2007, 09:45

@ DOS386

RxDOS vs DOS-C

Post reply

> Maybe ... first I wonder whether RX was already available at that time
> under the GPL ... is YES, then DOS-C was chosen because of a sort of
> C-purism only ?

As you can see from this announcement, RxDOS was released under the GPL in 1999. I think that this was just at the time when it was discussed which kernel to choose for FreeDOS - DOS-C or RxDOS.

DOS-C was chosen exactly because it's written in "C". The argument was that much more developers know "C" than Assembler. In my opinion, all systems programmers must know Assembler. But to adapt the kernel to the developers is a fundamentally wrong philosophy. Anyway, all the FreeDOS kernel developers I know actually knew Assembler rather well. So the argument was invalid from the start.

Another possible argument could be that "C" programs are more easily maintained. Then I wonder why MS-DOS, DR-DOS and PTS-DOS are all written in Assembler and could be maintained. Everything is ultimately a question of good organisation.

tom

29.10.2007, 11:23

@ lucho

RxDOS vs DOS-C

Post reply

> > Maybe ... first I wonder whether RX was already available at that time
> > under the GPL ... is YES, then DOS-C was chosen because of a sort of
> > C-purism only ?
>
> As you can see from this
> announcement,
> RxDOS was released under the GPL in 1999. I think that this was just at the
> time when it was discussed which kernel to choose for FreeDOS - DOS-C or
> RxDOS.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/kernel/old.2/beta1932.zip]
dates back to 13-Jul-1998

anyway, I didn't choose it. It just was *the* FreeDOS kernel when I entered the game 2001

> DOS-C was chosen exactly because it's written in "C". The argument was
> that much more developers know "C" than Assembler. In my opinion, all
> systems programmers must know Assembler.

I agree. They must *know* Assembler.
They even have to be able to write *some* Assembler.

But the FreeDOS kernel *proves*, that you can write a significant chunk of system code in "C", with very little size overhead (if any at all).

And it was probably written in much less time then a comparable project in ASM.

> But to adapt the kernel to the
> developers is a fundamentally wrong philosophy. Anyway, all the FreeDOS
> kernel developers I know actually knew Assembler rather well.

I *know* Assembler quite well. But I refuse to write anything longer then a few jundred lines in Assembler.

> Another possible argument could be that "C" programs are more easily
> maintained.

Right.

> Then I wonder why MS-DOS, DR-DOS and PTS-DOS are all written
> in Assembler MS/DR-DOS were started at a time when no reasonable "C"
> compilers were available; at this time the size overhead would have been
> considerable.

After that, it was probably a bit too late to switch.

> and could be maintained.
> Everything is ultimately a question of good organisation.

Maybe putting some money (in the form of fulltime working, payed programmers)
helps even more then a good organization.

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

BTW: a significant portion of MSDOS 6.2 (outside of the kernel) is written in "C"

Rugxulo

Usono,
29.10.2007, 13:53

@ lucho

RxDOS vs DOS-C

Post reply

> As you can see from this
> announcement,
> RxDOS was released under the GPL in 1999. I think that this was just at the
> time when it was discussed which kernel to choose for FreeDOS - DOS-C or
> RxDOS.
>
> DOS-C was chosen exactly because it's written in "C". The argument was
> that much more developers know "C" than Assembler.

DOS-C's first GPL release (according to Eric according to Pat) was 1 September 1995. So, that's well before RxDOS was made GPL (1999). Plus, I think Jim Hall was put in contact with Pat thanks to the DOSEMU people. So, whoever was working on DOSEMU probably was already using DOS-C, so it only makes sense to use the same kernel (I guess). Besides, 1995 was before FASM or NASM really got going. Then again, it was also before OpenWatcom was free, so I dunno really. And who knows how much false hope was wasted on the borked OpenDOS fiasco. (Seems a few FreeDOS people were interested in that, but bad licensing killed it.)

I'm all for assembly, but I personally find that FreeDOS is plenty good enough even though it's mostly C-based. I don't think it's necessarily easier to maintain because of that, though. (And I've never thought it was slow, but that's just my limited experience.)

Steve

US,
28.10.2007, 04:57

@ Rugxulo

RxDOS

Post reply

> Not too late, how could it be? (And BTW, the SourceForge page doesn't have
> any files, even in CVS!) Here's the latest RxDOS I know of:

Binaries, source and the RTX OS are at:
http://rxdos.sourceforge.net/
Dated 1998-11-22, slightly later than
http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/freedos/unofficial/rxdos.old/

Another binary file set is at:
http://www.samsungpc.com/gb/support/rxdos/main.html
Also has boot diskette image and same source as at SourceForge

Files in all binary sets are a mix of versions - don't ask me which set can be taken as definitive.

rr

Berlin, Germany,
28.10.2007, 17:30

@ Steve

RxDOS

Post reply

> Files in all binary sets are a mix of versions - don't ask me which set
> can be taken as definitive.

Why not ask Mike Podanoffsky?

---
Forum admin

Steve US, 29.10.2007, 00:33 @ rr	RxDOS Post reply
	> > Files in all binary sets are a mix of versions - don't ask me which set > > can be taken as definitive. > > Why not ask Mike Podanoffsky? I'm not interested enough.

Rugxulo Usono, 29.10.2007, 13:55 @ Steve	RxDOS Post reply
	> > Why not ask Mike Podanoffsky? > > I'm not interested enough. I don't think his e-mail address still works, IIRC. Even if he were available, he probably (like most) gave up on DOS a long time ago.

rr

Berlin, Germany,
29.10.2007, 14:29

@ Rugxulo

RxDOS

Post reply

> I don't think his e-mail address still works, IIRC. Even if he were
> available, he probably (like most) gave up on DOS a long time ago. :-(

Yes, mikepATworldDOTstdDOTcom is dead. Waiting for reply from mikepATrxdosDOTcom...

---
Forum admin

rr

Berlin, Germany,
31.10.2007, 15:36

@ rr

RxDOS

Post reply

> Yes, mikepATworldDOTstdDOTcom is dead. Waiting for reply from
> mikepATrxdosDOTcom...

"retry timeout exceeded" :-(

---
Forum admin

rr

Berlin, Germany,
29.10.2007, 14:46

@ Steve

RxDOS

Post reply

> Dated 1998-11-22, slightly later than
> http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/freedos/unofficial/rxdos.old/

There's also http://os.drake3d.com/ with version 7.x sources converted to A86.

---
Forum admin

Rugxulo

Usono,
30.10.2007, 05:26

@ rr

RxDOS

Post reply

> There's also http://os.drake3d.com/ with version 7.x sources converted to
> A86.

Interesting. I remember reading Mike online somewhere saying he wanted to port it to A86, but I never knew anyone actually did it. In fact, the only reason I can imagine to use A86 is because of the small size and low RAM usage (no mem. manager needed, which RxDOS lacks). I mean, this is not really any better, license-wise, than MASM. :-|

rr

Berlin, Germany,
30.10.2007, 10:56

@ Rugxulo

RxDOS

Post reply

> Interesting. I remember reading Mike online somewhere saying he wanted to
> port it to A86, but I never knew anyone actually did it. In fact, the only

Not it has been translated only, it was also used in http://www.pcengines.ch/wrap.htm. (You might also want to have a look at http://www.pcengines.ch/tinybios.htm.)

> reason I can imagine to use A86 is because of the small size and low RAM
> usage (no mem. manager needed, which RxDOS lacks). I mean, this is not
> really any better, license-wise, than MASM. :-|

I tend to agree, but Mr. Isaacson has to pay bills too.

---
Forum admin

Rugxulo

Usono,
01.11.2007, 03:11

@ rr

RxDOS

Post reply

> I tend to agree, but Mr. Isaacson has to pay bills too.

I have a registered copy of A86/A386 + D86/D386, but I don't use it much. What I was really saying is that A86 has a policy of "no distribute stuff written with it until registering" which I kinda disagree with. That (plus the fact that only 16-bit A86 is available as shareware) kinda puts a crimp on any potential FreeDOS use.

* If you want partial MASM compatibility, use ArrowASM or Watcom's WASM.
* If you want partial TASM "Ideal" compatibility, use LZASM.
* If you don't need compatible but need .OBJ and true portability, use NASM.
* If you want small, fast, low mem. usage, and only need 16-bit, use Wolfware.
* If you want small, fast, powerful, w/ IDE, supports any x86-64 cpu, runs on many OSes, use FASM.

Really, no one's stopping you from using whatever you want, though. I don't use any one particular assembler any more (though FASM rocks and has a very helpful / informative forum).

Jack

17.10.2007, 13:13

@ Jack

"C" For Systems Work Is ...

Post reply

I absolutely agree with Lucho. "C" for systems work is the PITS!!

One of my associates once ran 8 partitions, including both an IP and Novell
"stack"(as he called them), on an 8-Megabyte 80386. Not a "Ball of Fire",
but it got the job done. How did he do this?? Using DOS and "Desqview".
And "When was that", you ask?? 1988, almost TWENTY YEARS AGO!!

But, it made-no-money for "Chairman Gates", who even THEN had 1500 "Clowns"
working on what came to be known as Windows/NT, now called "Vista", and the
reason for everyone's "Mad Rush" to get quad-processors and 1-GB of memory!
What language does Windows use?? "C", God HELP us all!!

"C", quad-processors, and 1-GB of memory, What A JOKE!! They never really
figured-out how to use ONE processor and maybe 32-MB of memory efficiently,
and NOW we must all "dash out" to be SOLD DOWN-THE-RIVER by Intel and Gates
AGAIN??? "Get REAL, People"!!!

If there are still "doubters" about the power of assembly-language, perhaps
the next UIDE, for which "I have a plan", may make "believers" of them. A
"hint" about it: Same features/capabilities, 3.5K max. HMA, and 1728 bytes
of upper-memory, that is ALL! Johnson and Lucho already have its "model".

And I do NOT consider it at-ALL "dishonorable" to continue using V5.1 MASM,
which has been in my possession for 17 years!!!

lucho

17.10.2007, 14:27

@ Jack

Bloatware!

Post reply

I couldn't agree more, Jack!

A quote from http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1958814.htm:

Bloatware

It seems bigger more complex computer programs are outstripping the mammoth gains made in computer hardware technology.

A comparison was done between a 1986 Computer and a modern day PC.

The old computer, with just 4 Megabytes of ram and a tiny 8 MegaHertz processor outperformed the modern dual-core beast on nine out of seventeen tests.

The trial looked at how each computer handled similar tasks like word processing or making spreadsheets. It turns out modern programs waste a lot of processing power on unnecessary routines.

Japheth

Germany (South),
17.10.2007, 16:02

@ lucho

Please not another C vs. ASM debate!

Post reply

> I couldn't agree more, Jack!

But this "C vs. ASM" debate is such old hat that it is bloatware itself.

People believe what they want to believe, and usually the perception is deformed as well to be able to ignore the facts which don't support one's belief. This is a common disease of human beings, everyone suffers from it, but sometimes it may help a little if you become at least aware of it.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

17.10.2007, 19:13

@ Japheth

Bloatware is not just "C vs. Assembler"

Post reply

> But this "C vs. ASM" debate is such old hat that it is bloatware itself.

It's not just C vs. Assembler. The applications in 1986 were also written mostly in C. But they were still far from being a bloatware. It started a bit later...

> People believe what they want to believe, and usually the perception is
> deformed as well to be able to ignore the facts which don't support one's
> belief. This is a common disease of human beings, everyone suffers from
> it, but sometimes it may help a little if you become at least aware of it.

Don't worry, we're aware, but it's equally true that obvious things are often most difficult to see (especially given the brainwashing of the media and ads!), and here's hardly anything more obvious than bloatware in the computer business. So let's not turn blind eye to it.

Jack 17.10.2007, 16:09 @ lucho	Then "Keepen Zie Mouth SHUT"!! Post reply
	You, who have shown absolutely NO appreciation for EFFICIENCY, who only like to "Pick FIGHTS" with others, and who now want not-another debate, can achieve your ends very simply: "Keepen Zie Mouth SHUT", and do not begin any OTHER "threads" on this forum!!!

Steve

US,
25.10.2007, 15:12

@ Jack

"C" For Systems Work Is ...

Post reply

> "C", quad-processors, and 1-GB of memory,

INone of those was created for DOS, or because anybody thought DOS could be made to use use them optimally.

> What A JOKE!!

Try running a supercomputer with DOS. *THAT* would be a fine joke.

> They never really figured-out how to use ONE processor and maybe 32-MB
> of memory efficiently,

Depends on who you mean by "they". Even on PCs with DOS, some programmers have done wonders. And that *is* how it was meant to be, by God's computer company, IBM, when it created an open system that had space to play in.

> and NOW we must all "dash out" to be SOLD DOWN-THE-RIVER by Intel

There is no "must". If you like your 286, you are free to stay with it.

> and Gates AGAIN???

Not by him - he's retired from MS.

> "Get REAL, People"!!!

Get a life, Jack.

Jack

No Problem.,
15.10.2007, 18:22

@ lucho

MASM 5.10

Post reply

> "Beginners" may have some difficulties [with MASM V5.1]. One Example:
>
> btr [bx+IOF-@],bl
>
> According to Intel docs the second operand must be 16/32 bit. So
> using BL is somewhat confusing. MASM v6 won't accept BL.

"Beginners" will have difficulties in ANY assembly-language, which is
why it is taught at colleges so little, and "C" is taught so much.

Upon changing UIDE's 2 commands of the above form to use "BX", rather
than "BL", UIDE assembles to an identical .SYS file. Thus MASM V5.1
"forgives" this harmless misreading of the 80386 manual.

Laaca Czech republic, 13.10.2007, 13:48	Jack's drivers updated (Announce) Post reply
	Jack updated his UDMA drivers! Main change seems to be a merged UDMA/UDVD drivers into one driver called UIDE. I haven't tested it yet but i looks impresive. Good work Jack! Download site is as usual: http://johnson.tmfc.net/dos/

Jack 13.10.2007, 16:56 @ Laaca	Corrected UIDE Coming. Post reply
	Sadly, there is a multi-controller ERROR in the 10-11-2007 UIDE driver. I have sent a corrected 10-13-2007 UIDE driver to Johnson and Lucho for testing. Until it is posted, be-advised that the 10-11-2007 UIDE may not work properly on systems with more than two IDE controllers.

lucho 14.10.2007, 18:35 @ Japheth	MASM 5.10 Post reply
	> MASM v5.1 is needed to assemble the source without errors. It's offered for sale at E-bay for a few bucks, together with printed documentation If one searches for it, one can find some places to freely download it, too. It was also a part of the free OS/2 DDK, but recently IBM have discontinued it. The source can easily be converted to the newer (and now free) MASM versions.

Jack 14.10.2007, 14:44 @ Laaca	Corrected UIDE Available. Post reply
	The corrected 10-13-2007 UIDE has now been posted by Lucho as part of his COMBOOTF "boot" diskette files, which are available at: <http://linux.tu-varna.acad.bg/~lig/dos> For 17 years, MASM V5.1 has been my assembler. Those who prefer another assembler are free to convert UIDE's source file for it.

lucho 15.10.2007, 07:28 @ Jack	Corrected UIDE Available. Post reply
	They're now available at their principal location - the Johnson Lam's site: http://johnson.tmfc.net/dos/

Jack's drivers updated (Announce)

Corrected UIDE Coming.

Jack's drivers updated

MASM 5.10

Clarification

MASM 5.10

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MA$M32 ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MA$M32 ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Steve Hutchesson's weird "MASM32" licence

Steve Hutchesson's weird "MASM32" licence

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development prohibited with MASM ?!?

Open source development NOT prohibited with MASM!

If So, DELETE Your "Links".

If So, DELETE Your "Links".

don't worry

If So, DELETE Your "Links".

Still "Linked", I See!

MASM 5.10

MASM 5.10

MASM 5.10

MASM 5.10 and WASM

MASM 5.10 and WASM

WASM

NOT Responsible For Other Assemblers!!

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C

MASM 5.10? No!

DOS-C, RxDOS, EDR-DOS, MASM 5.10

Quantity issues

99% of DOS users run DOS in a Virtual Machine ?!?

99% of DOS users run DOS in a Virtual Machine ?!?

Real DOS is still alive!

Quantity issues

Hello

Hello

Hello

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

The German proverb about flies and something censored twice

The German proverb about flies and something censored twice

Efficiency still counts!

The German proverb about flies and something censored twice

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

Asynchronous synchronisation to ethics

Hello

Quantity issues

PRIDE Issues!!

Anyone Want a 1.75K UIDEJR??

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C FreeDOS kernel ASM vs C

MASM 5.10, RxDOS, DOS-C FreeDOS kernel ASM vs C

RxDOS. ASM vs C kernels. Cluster alocation of FreeDOS

MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects"

MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects"

MASM 5.10, WASM, Po-ASM, convincing "dialects"

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

recompiling the FreeDOS kernel -- easy as pie

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS | C vs ASM | purism | empty RX at SF ?

RxDOS vs DOS-C

RxDOS vs DOS-C

RxDOS vs DOS-C

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS

RxDOS