quote: Original post by null_pointer

No exaggeration is well-deserved. And why are you complaining about Windows accessing 2.5 MB of virtual memory (or whatever number you posted) – obviously, your program uses that much. If Windows REALLY took 2.5 MB of virtual memory to open a 14 KB file, let''s calculate how much RAM it would take to open a 1 MB image file: hmm…187 MB of RAM?

Right, 2.5MB. And that''s what the task manager says a 24K application is using without allocation any memory. (And it just creates a main window and goes to the main loop.) When I try to allocate 14K, then memory usage jumps 100K, but I will give you credit on this one because I may be screwing up on my code.

quote: If Windows didn''t handle resources correctly, it wouldn''t even load…

I did not say it was that bad. But it could improve they way it handles it. The KB has various bug reports on memory leaks. If it is the application which is at fault, then why closing it does noe free the resources? (Another example is the modem, I have had to restart my machine because windows insists that some application which was terminated using the task manager''s "End task", is still "using" the modem.)

quote: The KB is full of bug reports because of the required compatibility with 16-bit code. How many problems have you run into when trying to upgrade your code to use something new? Upgrading an Operating System is A BIG DEAL. Lots of work, lots of bugs, lots of testing, and the KB is still full of bugs. And it''s mainly the fault of compatibility. As I said before, if MS started over, there would be almost zero bugs in the KB applying to the new OS. Backwards compatibility is any OS''s biggest burden, and Linux will eventually fall under it too… The only way to eliminate those problems completely is to simply cut off many old users and start afresh.

You don''t really think that *ALL* of those bugs are related to legacy, do you? Just go to www.anoyances.org or to www.bugnet.com and see for your self.

Well, just my .02 cents

Topgoro

DOS is dead.

It was effectively dead as a viable platform for mainstream gaming 4-5 years ago.

Please move on....really.

I am totally unwilling to drop to DOS to play a game, and I''ve been a computer user/programmer going on 16 years now. I dont want to worry about VESA drivers, having a soundblaster 16 compatible soundboard (how many DOS games out there bother to support more than just that?), etc. I''m sure the situation is amplified for standard newbie-type users. If you want any type of audience for your game, don''t use DOS to program it.

If you want to grow as a programmer, program for Windows, MacOS, BeOS or X-Windows. Unless you are really interested in programming real-time embedded systems... That is the only market in which DOS-style programming has a future, and even there its being threatened as CPUs get smaller, faster and cheaper. Many embedded system OSes are starting to mimic Windows-like APIs. You might not like event-handling/message-passing/WIMP interface coding, but its the future of almost everything, so you should learn to get used to it if you ever intend to make a living programming.

Also, you might as well code in a check that looks to see if its year 2001, and if so the game will immediately exit.... Windows ME is the last version that will have any DOS support whatsoever, and even its DOS support will break compatibility (even more so than Win98 or Win95) with many DOS games.

To add even more negative-DOS stuff here: Microsoft hasn''t made a generally-available DOS-compatible compiler in YEARS. They want DOS to die more than anybody. When the company that sold the technology for so many years wants it to die off, its pretty foolish to be stubborn and keep using it.



Ok, that''s enough ranting for one post.

quote: Original post by Topgoro

You don''t really think that *ALL* of those bugs are related to legacy, do you? Just go to www.anoyances.org or to www.bugnet.com and see for your self.

Went to www.bugnet.com, and couldn''t find any bugs not related to legacy support.

Went to www.annoyances.org and found that almost all of the things cited were required for previous DOS/Windows compatibility. Many of these "annoyances" may have been truly annoying, but they lack both tact and knowledge of Windows programming.

If you want me to list examples of this, just say the word.

I still think that MS did as good a job as could be expected with Windows 95, considering they chose DOS/Win 3.x compatibility. I also don''t envy their position! It''s not easy to have people coming at you from all angles expecting your product to please them 100%. DOS users wanted DOS support. Major software companies wanted legacy support for Windows 3.x (even though they eventually had to re-write their programs anyway). Major hardware companies wanted Plug-n-Play support. Windows needed a new GUI to sell (Win 3.x''s was terrible). How would you design a system that basically had to support everything under the sun, and still run reliably and provide improvements over the old release? Most of the "unstable" behavior of Windows is simply because of the fact that Windows relies on drivers (as any modern OS must). If the drivers are faulty, Windows will crash. Also, there is a GREAT DEAL of software being developed for Windows, by 3rd party developers, that is horribly written. Any OS must be dependent on hardware and software to do it''s job correctly...

It''s really not too hard to imagine how Windows could crash, considering the conglomeration of out-of-date standards that it must support. Even then, Windows will always crash because of the hardware and software people use with it. There were only ever a few fixes to Windows 9x that dealt with internal crashing. Are you debating Windows or the things people use with it? Or perhaps MS''s decision to have legacy support? 99% of these problems still boil down to legacy support. (the other 1% includes bug fixes that any OS must go through)




- null_pointer
Sabre Multimedia

Are there still DOS lovers still out there? The only market for DOS products, as far as I know, are for other DOS lovers, and maybe people who can''t afford new machines and operating systems.

The majority of people, as far as I know, use Windows. If you want a program to become popular, at least offer a Windows port. And keep an eye on Linux and other operating systems. Although Windows lovers will deny it, they actually show some potential. Linux already has a large market in servers. X-windows, WINE, Star Office, WordPerfect, and many other programs promise to make it acceptable for desktops as well.

But remember that most people use the operating system that comes with their machine, which is almost always Windows. Very few people get another OS.

dos has been dead for about 5 years.

ECKILLER

Holy crap, I just read this entire thread from the beginning.

A decade ago I was a DOS programmer. ASM, C, seg/off addressing, the whole bit. Then I took a few years off from programming. Now I''m itching to get back into programming, so I''ve found this entire thread fascinating, because it is a bit daunting for me to give up my DOS/VGA development comfort zone for the learning curve needed to get on the Windows/DirectX fast track.

Thanks to null_pointer - great posts! You''ve convinced this sentimental (semimental?) old timer that it''s time to bite the bullet. ;-)

Brian

quote: Original post by null_pointer

People, there are two steps to posting Windows facts:

Step 1 - Think
Step 2 - Post

All you need to do is follow them in that order...




- null_pointer
Sabre Multimedia


Edited by - null_pointer on 4/6/00 5:10:49 PM

LOL

Okay, listen.
Pay attention.
Carefully now.
I nearly burnt my 56k out downloading the DX7 SDK.
122 megs. 1-2-2 MEGS!!! One look at the samples MS have sooo thoughtfully provided, and I''m flat. In the tutorials, they''ve jumped directly into stuff an avg. DOS coder would never understand. I sincerely believe that MS is trying to deliberately confuse everyone (getting rid of the competition?) Anyways, 122 megs on my HDD with nothing to do. The next day, I downloaded DJGPP with allegro, coming to about 12 megs, and I''m on my way to completing my first game. Moral? Windows (and windows programs) are incredibly bloated.
Agreed, DX7 has some stuff that Allegro doesn''t, but a human with an IQ >= that of a tomato can do really cool stunts in DOS that windows would never allow.
AT LEAST for game programming (where there is no question of having a consistent interface), DOS is a much better platform.

DOS still alive. period. As long as there''s DOS x.xx around in any part of this world, it is not dead! You can say it dead when there''s absolutely no more DOS around.
Then you say, DOS IS DEAD. But then again, there''s still emulator for DOS (or DOS emulation)!

Then, why would everyone write Win program when DOS is many way better? It might be better for a DOS programmer, but most programmer choose to have their program can run nicely on a lot of other machines. I ran feel DOS demo that have *soar throat* on my sound card. But not a single Win demo give me that (up until now)..... and that same with hi-color or hi-res video mode.

A great marksman can shoot accurately,
a great runner can run fast.
Similarly,
An accomplished DOS programmer can write DOS program easily,
an accomplished Win programmer can write Win program easily.

So, don''t complaint about Win program being hard to write and is bloated, or DOS program that can''t do this & that.
What DOS program can do, Win can do. What Win program can do, DOS can do.

Ermm

"what a win program can do a Dos program can do"?????

No it can''t.
DOS can''t address flat memory without an extender, and then you''re not using dos.
Full stop.


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