quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Well yes, a DOS4GW game is a DOS4GW game. It discards certain parts of the original operating system and wraps them in a shell that makes it looks like DOS.

{censored}k, no it doesnt {censored}ng discard anything, it just adds, DOS code is still executed. Directx(call it windows extender if you will) sends GDI (which is native to windows) pretty much to hell, you MAY call them DX games, but they run under OS called Windhowls !

quote:
And I can tell you WHY a dos app won't do everything a Windows app could do, but you'd just go into the whole thing of: "But we could code low level dos-extended hardware-specific driver code, reinvent the wheel, invent fire, reverse engineer, re-evolve, ..." bLAH!

So WHY the {censored}k dont you TELL me ? The point is, you CAN ride to Aspen with bicycle if you are dumb enough. Any app running on any OS is limited BY HARDWARE ONLY.

quote:
Use windows.
Dos is dead.

I DO use windows. Second statement boils down to definition of dead. Pig is dead after its killed. It may still have long history in various freezers, it may be sold, it may finally rot or be eaten. It may haunt you. But its still more or less dead. When is software dead ? In my opinion after its makers dont actively support it anymore.

quote:
But stop yapping about "I can save the world with DOS".

Pretty funny statement. Who said that ?



-kertropp

C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(185) : error C3142: 'PushAll' :bad idea
C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(207) : error C324: 'TryCnt': missing point

Edited by - kertropp on 4/12/00 2:32:54 PM

Question: What started this whole "debate"?

Answer: The original poster made a few *forces smile* "incorrect" remarks about DOS and Windows, and I replied with "how is it better?" and no one gave an answer... That is what caused about 90% of this thread.

Check the original post for more information. (you can use the page number at the bottom of this page)



- null_pointer
Sabre Multimedia

NEVER!!!

I don''t understand how can people compare compare Win9X with DOS.

Windows is simply a program running on DOS (Not true for Win NT and WIn2K). That''s why Windows is compatible to DOS.... it runs on top of it.

Win9X runs on top of an updated DOS... I think it''s DOS7.0 (maybe it''s a newer version for WIN98 but I doubt it).

It''s not strange then that Windows can be so unstable and slow. I mean a Graphics interface (Called Windows) running on top of 16 bit DOS that isn''t such a briliant OS itself. Not only that, DOS itself goes back as far as 8086 machines which were 8 bit (If I am not mistaken) That means DOS used to be 8 bit OS that was later adapted to 16 bit machines. To add insult to injury those first versions of DOS were an adaptation to CP/M OS for 4 bit processors. And we wonder why Windows can annoy the hell out of us.

All this said my hat (if I had one ) goes off to Windows programmers that succeeded making Windows 9X as stable and fast as it is. They had to be briliant to pull it off.

I also had to comment about ASM and somebody saying that compilers optimize the code better than humans. That is oh so wrong.
Compilers optimize the code pretty efficiently that''s true. But even compilers were made by humans (unless I am completely wrong ) Additionaly the functions that the compilers optimize the code from are generalized so they can be used in many situations with many different parameters. Essentialy each funtion has it''s ASM code bloated since it includes parts that are not used. A person optimizing ASM code specificaly for his need can make a MUCH better (shorter and faster) code. That is why almoust all the code for processors running in mobile phones, radios, public payphones, TVs, cars and similar are mostly (if not ALL) programmed in ASM as it''s the only way for them to operate fast enough. That could change if people were willing to pay more for let''s say mobile phones so companies could afford to put pentium 3 in them with 64MB RAM... if they had pentiums in there they could afford programming in C and letting the compiler handle all optimizations.

regards
Tekumze

Windows: "A 32 bit layer to a 16 bit shell for an 8 bit patch to an OS written for a 4 bit microprocessor from a 2-bit company that can''t stand 1 bit of competition."

Start taking pills people.
You have too much time and too much stress.

Now shut the damn thread down so dead that no-one will even argue about the "possible liveness ''cause there''s still one daft geek that reads it every day"


#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**

quote: Original post by Tekumze
I also had to comment about ASM and somebody saying that compilers optimize the code better than humans. That is oh so wrong.

Obviously you have no grip of the topic that you brought up. You happen to be oh so wrong.

quote:
Compilers optimize the code pretty efficiently that''s true. But even compilers were made by humans (unless I am completely wrong ) Additionaly the functions that the compilers optimize the code from are generalized so they can be used in many situations with many different parameters. Essentialy each funtion has it''s ASM code bloated since it includes parts that are not used. A person optimizing ASM code specificaly for his need can make a MUCH better (shorter and faster) code. That is why almoust all the code for processors running in mobile phones, radios, public payphones, TVs, cars and similar are mostly (if not ALL) programmed in ASM as it''s the only way for them to operate fast enough. That could change if people were willing to pay more for let''s say mobile phones so companies could afford to put pentium 3 in them with 64MB RAM... if they had pentiums in there they could afford programming in C and letting the compiler handle all optimizations.

Do you even know what the differences are between pipelined superscalar processors and processors used in mobile phones ? Some my pals happen to work in Nokia, and are involved with programming the phones. They DO NOT write anything in assembler. NONE of the PLC programmers does write anything in assembler. I myself am a ROBOT programmer, we DO NOT write anything in assembler ( although we could ). Quality standards for this code are set too high, for writing it in assembler. Putting pentiums in there is not impossible because people arent willing to pay, but because of power consumption,size and reliability (cost is much smaller factor ) !
Now before you start replying to me, start up VC, write couple of lines of code with simple integer math, and try optimizing it in assembler. now switch to release project settings(with optimizations for speed and P2 processor ), compile it and create listing. From there you see how wrong you are about compilers.

-kertropp

C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(185) : error C3142: 'PushAll' :bad idea
C:\Projects\rg_clue\ph_opt.c(207) : error C324: 'TryCnt': missing point

quote: Do you even know what the differences are between pipelined superscalar processors and processors used in mobile phones?

I''m not sure, but I think superscalar are the big chips used in PCs, and the ones in the phones aren''t superscalar? I''m not sure anybody disagrees with this. Anyway, I always thought that programs were hardwired onto the microchips (with the exception of some of the newest stuff). I''m not up to date as far as phones go, and I thought the DOS vs. Windows was a PC thing . . .

quote: Some my pals happen to work in Nokia, and are involved with programming the phones. They DO NOT write anything in assembler. NONE of the PLC programmers does write anything in assembler. I myself am a ROBOT programmer, we DO NOT write anything in assembler ( although we could ). Quality standards for this code are set too high, for writing it in assembler. Putting pentiums in there is not impossible because people arent willing to pay, but because of power consumption,size and reliability (cost is much smaller factor ) !

Agreed. Putting a large, hot, pentium chip in a phone is overkill.

quote: Now before you start replying to me, start up VC, write couple of lines of code with simple integer math, and try optimizing it in assembler. now switch to release project settings(with optimizations for speed and P2 processor ), compile it and create listing. From there you see how wrong you are about compilers.

From what I see, there is a large difference between optimizing and writing from scratch, and I''m sure experts can catch at least as many (if not more) optimizations than a compiler can. If they''re ASM experts, that is. Quality? That''s up to the programmer, I''ve seen C++ listings that make less sense than trying using the "type" command in DOS to look at an executable.

As far as I can see, this is basically a battle between

-the people who want to get down to the hardware and make small, fast, programs no matter how hard or complex it is

and

-the people who want programs to be easy, simple to understand, and not have to re-invent the wheel every time.

Basically, I think it''s a matter of taste. Some people like it hard, some want it easy. Myself? I prefer easy, but I don''t mind diving into a little complexity sometimes. I plan on learning ASM someday, even if it''s just so I know how the computer communicates with the programs (and maybe get some bragging rights). I''ll probably stick with ANSI C++ as my primary programming language.

HEY! HELLO! Linux!!!

Did you know Q3 Arena was out first for Linux? Q3 can suck on deez. I hate that game.

Anyway, staying on topic, DOS is dead, sorry. Of course, it''s ALWAYS a great OS to test new concepts on, like a non-hardware specific 3D engine. Windows, on the otherhand, is great these days because things like Open GL and DirectX. Windows still sucks! It crashes more on one computer than how many cars crash each year! And that''s in just like a week! Maybe I''m exaggerating.. Oh well..

-ZeN

DOS IS DEAD... let it rest.

For those that can''t afford a new computer, I say, what the HELL does free mean. Go to compusa, sign up for MSN service for a year, buy the computer at 474$ and get 475$ in rebates.



int main() {
   if(reply.IsSpam()) {
      while(true) {
         int*ptr=new int[1000000];
         reply.RandomInsult(); } }
   else std::cout<< "mailto:amorano@bworks.com"
}

hihi... Kertropp... I like opposition... at least I know someone will read the stuff I wrote and if not anything else he will at least get angry


The Anonymous poster is right. I am not really talking about optimizing, I am talking about writing from scratch. I have yet to see code written in C/C++ that is faster than what I come up in ASM even if I am not that good at optimizing the code (but I think I am pretty decent)

Another thing,. You wrote that cost is not really the problem? Now that is news to me coz where I work we were actualy considering doing a product with a 2*8 LCD display instead of 2*16. The usability reasons forced us to go with 2*16 but the consideration was made because of a bit more than 1$ difference in price. You know... that 1$ can be quite annoying at 50K (and UP) units especially for a product that customers should be getting for free with their power supply.

About the ASM usage in todays phones and stuff. I admit I am slightly wrong. Even we (our company) weren''t and aren''t using only ASM. The things that requires less speed are usually made in C, everything that is speed critical is in ASM (at least here). And at the end of the development we''re sometimes forced to rewrite some code made in C to ASM so the programming actually fits on the chip we''re using (yes we''re that stingy with costs), we''re talking situatiuons where 2K RAM is considerend a huge amount. There is a difference if you are selling your product in mass to companies. They look at a cost much closer than consumers do. Consumer doesn''t care much if a product is 10% more expensive if the cost is stil low. They are buying only one anyway. Companies on the other side buy many MANY more and believe me if they can get another truck load of stuff at 50K units the will certainly want to do that.

On the other things I basically agree with the Anon poster, it''s much easier to make programs in C. If you work under strict code policy (and I have in the past) it''s easier to check out nice C code than ASM.

And for the record. Till now I programmed in PL1, Pascal, C/C++, Objective C (Next Step OS) and ASM for Motorola and NEC microcontrollers. This is not counting a few old languages that we were forced by school.

I better quit now... I already wrote to much especially since it doesn''t have much to do with the topic.