Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

PCI phased out? (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 17.02.2011, 02:28

> > Also, it really is hard to rewrite everything from scratch. I guess I
> don't
> > have to tell you (BSD fan). Worse is when it's undocumented, which makes
> > things almost impossible. At least FreeDOS (free/libre) "mostly" does
> > everything we need, which is no small feat given all the efforts that
> went
> > into it.
>
> Huh, how does it replace DV/X? Does it have job control or so?
No (see "mostly"?), that was the point, you can't replace something when it's heavily undocumented (though Win16 is worse here).

> In my experience it about evens out on non-Windows. The larger datasegment
> size on one hand, and the large number of registers and raised minimal
> instruction level (and the systematic use of both in every library) about
> cancel eachother.
You don't need extra registers (use push/pop). You don't need to assume SSE2 (use CPUID), which most compilers can't target anyways. Besides, there are ten bazillion extensions since SSE2 was a standard on all PCs (P4 - 2000, AMD64 - 2003): SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.[12], AVX, etc. (Even new cpus don't have all these, not even close!) Yes, in very rare cases, SSE2 can speed up an app significantly, but you don't need 64-bit for that.

> > Why did they not implement V86 under long mode?
>
> One emulation only. 64-bit has 32-bit. 32-bit has 16-bit.
16-bit covers real mode (8086 - MS-DOS) and pmode (286 - OS/2 1.x), two entirely different things (though they both use segmentation).

I've heard conflicting reports (Ross Ridge, Bart Oldemann), so I'm not entirely sure if the cpu (long mode) itself or just the 64-bit OSes (Win64, Linux64) refuse to support one or both of those.

> > Dunno, probably because
> > commercially MS and Linux don't need (nor want) it, not in the
> slightest.
>
> That next to nobody needs it is probably true too.
The cpu and OS vendors are heavily tied together and make decisions (sometimes irrational) based upon one another (silly examples redacted).

> And more importantly, if they add it now for a few 16-bit vigilantes, they
> can't get rid of it till 2025. Keep in mind that 80386 was introduced in
> 1985, and as an arch is only starting to be phased out.
The 286 was still used until early '90s (according to Wikipedia). So it's unfair to think that 100% (or even 50%) of all cpus in 1985 were 386s. Even if they were, software had to catch up. (CWS even has an old 386 laptop with only 512 kb of RAM! Yet Japheth's 486 now has 32 MB, heh. So it's a weird playing field.)

MS was still working with IBM on OS/2 1.x as late as 1991. Win 3.0 (1990) was the last to still support 8086. NT (386) didn't come out until 1993 and wasn't targeted at home users until XP (2001). (You could argue about Win95's Win32 or Win32s API here, but those were still DOS-based systems.) Even VCPI (386) and DPMI (286, 386) didn't appear until 1989/1990. DJGPP started on a real 386 (w/ 2 MB) in 1989. Linux started on a real 386 back in 1991. Don't forget that even BP7 (1992?) didn't support 32-bit (as you're obviously well aware!), nor did even Delphi 1 (1995).

> If you take 2003 as start of x86_64 that means if they had added 16-bit
> mode they probably had to lug it along till 2003+(2010-1985)=2028
No, because 2003 was when AMD64 Opteron servers first appeared (right?). When did they start targeting home users? How many had/have AMD64 cpus? How many use 64-bit OSes? Similar to Intel except home users never got Core 2 until 2006. So you should consider 2006 as the (full) "introduction" (cpu only). XP 64-bit was 2005 but most people didn't have that (again, not targeted at consumers). So Vista (2007) would be the (partial) "introduction" of Win64 to some home users. Until Win8 (two years away?), assuming rumors are correct about it being 64-bit only, you can't say the market is level. And that's only the beginning! You can't support what nobody has yet, the market is mostly old stuff (since that's completely reasonable). So you have to add a few more years. So it doesn't truly "begin" until then (2013) anyways. Then 32-bit will be declared dead, same as DOS was declared dead with XP.

> > I don't ever (!) want them to remove 32-bit compatibility.
>
> I'm not that afraid about 32-bit EXEs running, but 32-bit OSes are in
> danger due to the BIOS->EFI change.
All new drivers (sigh), another drawback.

> > It's very easy to imagine them forcing
> > us to make all our binaries PE64, which would be very very
> short-sighted,
> > IMNSHO.
>
> Naah. The wrath of the long tail rules there. PE bins will run for quite a
> while within windows. And I guess 32-bit OSes will run for a handful of
> years minimum too. Anyone who says that he can look forward longer than
> that must be a multi-millionaire, since he would have bought a gazillion
> Apple shares early this decennium if he could forsee IT that well.
Of course they can't do it now. But give them five years. As long as 50%
of the people "don't care", they'll probably do it. I mean, if they
can't even keep NTVDM barely working on XP (2001-6), what makes you
think WoW 32-bit will be any different??

> > Yes, modern PCs are crap.
>
> Sigh, more nagging and whining. What are you going to about it?
What do you reasonably expect me to do about it? Do you really think
Win32 or FreeBSD64 is the answer? Doubt it. And certainly you don't
expect me to roll my own hardware (though presumably the 386 is patent
free by now, maybe even 486, I dunno).

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 397 users online (0 registered, 397 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum