Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

HX question about link.exe (DOSX)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 31.07.2008, 20:12

> For running Unix the 68040 was superior

How so? Which Unix are we talking about?

>> We could solve the problem entirely if we had full development
>> suite live CDs
>
> Please no. I have done so, dog slow. Constantly spinning CD etc.

You would obviously want to copy it to RAM to avoid the slow CD access times, esp. for compiling stuff.

>> While true, I would also add that the 286 itself seems to have been ...
> It was a big deal for the OS and maybe driver creators only. Not for the app programmers. If you have to count those, you also need to count PAE.

I think it was too fast for some pre-existing common apps, incompatible (push sp, pop sp), especially regarding the "pmode-only" approach (e.g. some stuff wouldn't run). You couldn't even run multiple DOS apps at the same time, which made Bill Gates (supposedly) call it "braindead". So it was a big switch. OS/2 1.1 was probably the last to fully support 286s. And WfW 3.11 was 386 only. For whatever reason, the 386 became much much more popular, even to the point of heavily eclipsing the 286 in software development (even for apps that didn't need that much RAM). You don't see a lot of 286 pmode assembly apps these days. (No free 286 DOS extenders that I know of.) With the exception of some Borland tools, I'm not sure it was ever that well supported (from my limited view in hindsight).

As far as PAE, it hasn't really taken off yet (except for server OSes??). We don't all have that much RAM (comparatively) yet. Maybe that's the way to go for keeping V86 + 16-bit stuff working even with high amounts of RAM. So who really needs x86-64? ;-)

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15108 Postings in 1358 Threads, 246 registered users, 14 users online (0 registered, 14 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum