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, 21:26

> > Itanium 2 can only run x86 in software emulation now.
> Compatible to their own lines, even though the lines were in heavy
> decline.
> Not everything is about x86.

Yes it is (almost), for good or bad. The only reason for Itanium 2's lacking support is that it was faster in software anyways, so they decided to scrap the hardware compatibility aspect.

> > Wait for SSE5. Heck, even Windows 7 claims to be even more
> > multi-core friendly.
> The problem with multicore is the apps, not the OS.

I know, but the OS does do some things itself, so speeding itself up doesn't hurt.

> SSE5 has some minor checksumming/compression and encryption primitives
> only afaik.

AMD does claim much improved (30%?) single thread speedups.

> While I actually like the idea, I don't expect them to be a massive chance
> in performance, except in some heavy utilized SSL servers or so.

Can't know, just have to wait and see.

> > FPC 1.0.10 had an EMX port (DOS + OS/2 in one), which seems cool. Do
> any
> > newer versions support that?
> Don't know. Afaik the devels that mostly did that partially went to the
> native OS/2 port. And while still alive (as in devels are on the list) the
> mutation rate there is not that high either :-)

I think the README.TXT still incorrectly mentions the EMX port as if still available, but the FTP /snapshots/ shows an empty i386-emx/ dir for both v22 and v23. I'm not surprised, esp. since EMX isn't actively maintained, AFAICT.

> > Same with Cygwin. What, did they forget
> > their expertise? No, they just randomly lost interest.
> But that is _NORMAL_, any organisation of any kind has a certain people
> throughput. If key people loose interest, who are YOU to force them to do
> anything?

I can't force and am not trying to, obviously. I just don't understand the rationale for dropping everything that was acceptable before.

> > In other words, things always break whether new or old.
> And old things lie on the ground, rot away and become fossils. Like Dos
> and Dinosaurs.

It's just frustrating: invest all your time and energy into this ... oh wait, we've moved onto something else. Try again!

DPMI is a standard, MS was very important to its creation. It was published by a 12-member committee. Ignoring all the real-world reasons why they can't, I'm wondering, why wouldn't they want to be more compatible by running more apps?? "Yikes, 2K3 broke something, let's fix it before the next version. Oh what, we didn't fix it? Bah, we're rich, what do we care?" And yet the majority of the world is no better. All their anti-MS b.s. and yet they do the same damn thing, spit on the little guy. It's all politics instead of "hey, how do I get my app to run best?" Medicine that nobody can afford is a "big crap", not very useful to anybody.

> > Lousy DOS support.
> Feature not regression.

BTW, DOSEMU claims to work (non-gfx) on NetBSD and "maybe FreeBSD", ever tried? Or would that make *BSD less appealing?

> > Various other bugs and gotchas. Vista isn't that bad, but it's
> > not that good either (at least, not good enough to kill XP and force
> > everyone to upgrade). At least, I hope all their work on Win7 won't
> > detract from SP2/SP3 for Vista (which does indeed need it).
> As far as I heard, Win7 is a dolled up Vista.

2k3 kernel = Vista pre-SP1 (NT 6.0)
2k7 kernel = Vista SP1 (NT 6.0.0001)
? = Windows 7 (NT 6.1)

> > > For you, somehow conserving Dos, and putting everything else in
> stasis is an obsession.
> >
> > Who said put everything in statis?
> Well, got that as the general tenure of all your messages in this thread.

Progress doesn't have to kill everything that came before it. We are not praying mantises.

> > Change is good, but
> > change that breaks compatibility for no good reason (without good
> > workaround) is bad.
> First, there can be good reasons that don't have workaround. Nobody is
> obliged to actually keep compatibility.

Just as nobody is obliged to keep diplomatic relations with foreign countries?


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15347 Postings in 1387 Threads, 254 registered users, 16 users online (0 registered, 16 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum