Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Compatibility woes / deprecation (Miscellaneous)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 18.02.2009, 20:57

> > Have you tried the ELF "Gold" linker with FPC on *nix?
>
> No why?

'Cause it's supposed to be better (x86 and x86-64 ELF only). And you seem in a better position to test it than me.

> > 2K works, but that's 'cause they made it
> > better in order to "merge" WinME and Win2K into WinXP.
>
> I doubt it. I think it was more a request from business users after NT4
> And XP was not even on the horizon.

XP is just a lightly-modified 2k, so they are very similar. But XP was finally offered to "home" users unlike 2k.

> /me doubts if there is "a lot of people" doing "DJGPP development"

Probably true, but there are random users out there who don't "check in" too often.

> > > The world moved on, and some people prefered to stay behind. Now they
> > are complaining they really got left behind.
> >
> > No, they are complaining that things which should still work no
> > longer will due to willful negligence of the vendors.
>
> IMHO that is slander.

First of all, this is a written forum, so that'd technically be libel. But it's not that either. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone. BUT, it's true that some things don't work anymore and it's due to bogus (or even political) reasons instead of technical ones. As mentioned, Windows no longer supports certain subsystems and no longer runs on anything but x86, x86-64, and IA64 (unless you count XBox 360, which I don't). So much for "portable".

> win32 never was stable to begin with and constantly expanded. Forward
> compatibility was never guaranteed.

Actually, at one time MS was intent on having a "stable" Windows API (back in 16-bit days).

> > Not even close. It's far far far from being widespread.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_in_the_United_States

I'm not saying people don't speak Spanish (e.g. San Antonio, Texas or Puerto Rico which is actually only a territory), but it's still not the official language or anything close to that. And really only those closer to Mexico itself have that influence. Other places don't at all. Very very very isolated / monolingual country (34 million != 300 million).

> > (Besides, Spanish is well-covered in Latin-1
>
> Well, that is not cp437, so there you have your first conflict.

cp850 is what was generally used, but cp819 is the "true" Latin-1 (although not found in most DOSes, third-party .CPI needed, e.g. Kosta Kostis' ISOLATIN.CPI).

> > So you're effectively struggling with UTF-8 when nobody cares much
> beyond even Latin-1 (if even)!
>
> Well, that is simply not true. Note that UTF-8 actually cleans up a lot of
> old stuff with multiple codepages.

I know that, but the net gains aren't enough for all the efforts. OpenWatcom has support for Japanese messages, but it hasn't been kept updated. So it's almost useless. It's not a bad thing, and someone could update it, so I'd rather they not delete it entirely. But it's obviously not first priority and not worth too much effort. (I'm not arguing against Unicode, just saying it isn't an absolute necessity.)

> > But how did Win9x suddenly move from "good enough" to "bad"?
>
> Same as with dos mostly:
> Nobody anymore looking into specific win9x issues for years already.

And the fact that the main OS pre-installed / used by 90% of the people has crappy DOS support had nothing to do with it??

> It requires active work to investigate such claims. Your whole argument is
> based on the fact that keeping something working in a live codebase
> requires hardly any effort, which is simply false.

I just don't know of any major changes that would require huge workarounds for Win9x in most normal cases.

> > > The only win98 that I have seen in 4 years was the one I installed
> > myself.
> >
> > I've only seen very few Europeans in 4 years, but that
> > doesn't make them rare, too. :-P
>
> It would have been if you saw heaps of them every day in the same region a
> few years back.

Face it, big dogs get more food than little ones. You almost have to reckon with them. And if you're not careful, they'll eat the little dogs' food too. Even though the big dog was once little, he's forgotten how it used to be, so he forgets how tough it is. Sure you may have to prepare a separate plate for each, but unless you only want one dog / species to survive, you have to work a drop (but not much) harder.

> > But ironically, Firefox 2.x was a bloated pig and only 3.x corrected
> some
> > of that. And yet the machines who would most benefit (Win9x) aren't
> > supported. Go figure.
>
> Apparantly nobody using them anymore. Otherwise those people who had most
> to gain had fixed it, or created an alternate release.

For a group (Mozilla) that rallied so hard against MS for having buggy IE, they sure jumped ship fast once MS dropped Win9x support. "How can you trust MS when they didn't update for five years?" Well, Firefox has dropped Win9x permanently, so now they are no better. So much for their bragging.

> > Apparently you don't understand. Windows NT used to have POSIX, OS/2,
> and
> > DOS subsystems. How many of those still work? Don't you see a trend
> here?
>
> (afaik OS/2 was never released), the Dos system actually got better over
> time.

No, the NTVDM has always had bugs. Even Quake wouldn't run on it due to bugs that MS refused to fix. And this was when DOS was still huge. Sandmann (CWSDPMI dude) could've worked around it, but it would've held up development for a month, so they just ignored it. (Besides, NT isn't really a gamer's OS.) Same with Win2k, more bugs that CWS (et al.) had to work around just so apps would run. (Try running anything DJGPP-ish compiled before 2000, it almost definitely won't work.)

> But for the rest, yes there is a trend. But I
> (1) don't understand/consider it a problem. Mountains rise and fall too,
> nothing is forever.
> (2) don't understand why you expect it NOT to break.

Why should it break? I guess it's a tiny bit unfair to expect MS to "do everything", but since only they can fix it (closed src), we're stuck! And I'm just saying, neither Win98SE nor WinME are even technically ten years old. Okay, so XP etc. has replaced it mostly, but only on new machines. Do all old machines break immediately once the warranty expires? Shouldn't working machines still be supported and used? Otherwise, they just rot and serve no purpose. I don't see how that's responsible behavior to ignore a perfectly working machine.

I just don't know enough about Win32 to claim that Win9x is SO hard and outdated. Surely it would be better (in theory) to support all Win32, right? Fine, it's too much work, if you say so. I'm just saying, in a perfect world ....

> > And don't give me the marketshare crap. Why does it break?
>
> Who is going to pick up the bill to keep it running?

Bill? ;-)

> > Is a new OS worth more somehow by actually doing less???
>
> Nonsense, they do a lot more, they just clean out some legacy cruft.

Legacy cruft that involves lots of apps. You're basically saying that any apps written previously "don't count" or "aren't useful anymore". Basically, MS "wasted their time" on Win9x. So why should we even bother with XP / Vista / etc.?? I'm sure it's considered a "big crap" in hindsight, too.

> > > See above XP couldn't run all 2k and nt4 (2k supported some nt4 ones)
> > > too.
> >
> > And ME broke driver compatibility, just as Win95 did, just as Win16
> did.
>
> ME doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I skipped it.

Zima doesn't exist anymore either. What's your point? That you can selectively choose what to recognize? Just like Palestine is / isn't a state (yet)? Or that Yugoslavia no longer exists except in separate parts?

It's just annoying when some things don't get a fair shake. I'm sure ME has bugs, but all the more reason to try to support it, to make it less buggy, to make it more useful, better, etc. Healthy people don't need doctors, only the sick do.

> All my HW worked with Vista 64-bit, except my creative soundcard. I didn't
> like that, but you are exaggerating grossly.

I think Creative didn't supply any Vista drivers. And some things don't work like they did on XP (EAX? 3D Sound, accelerated or whatever). Now, you can blame Creative for "being lazy" or blame MS for "breaking driver compatibility" or just say, "Oh well, time to upgrade". Anyway you look at it, fun fun fun. :-(

> I don't like netbooks except for their intended use: limited very mobile
> surfing and mailing, which I don't do enough to warrant the expense.
> Bad keyboard and too lowres monitor. Fixing those issues turns them
> into an underpowered, but otherwise ordinary laptop. (even pricewise)

They are smaller (e.g. 2 lbs. instead of 6.6 lbs. like my current laptop) and use lots less battery life. Sure, the keyboard sucks, and the screen is pretty small, but hey, if you don't need more, why pay extra for it?

> > The whole point of things like ANSI C and POSIX is that it'll be
> portable.
>
> You still believe that?

It does its job, albeit imperfectly. I'm just saying, people whine about standards (web, coding, etc.) and yet don't even bother to support older things (breaking API support, etc.), which seems a bit backwards.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15115 Postings in 1359 Threads, 249 registered users, 26 users online (1 registered, 25 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum