On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Jack <gykazequ...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But, there are a LOT of us who do not use DJGPP and yet COULD use a bit
> more UMB space, to load more/bigger drivers etc.

In fairness, DJGPP is quite widespread, at least in apps, not
necessarily developer tools, though I admit there are alternatives.
It's hard for me to not respect all that DJGPP has accomplished. But
yeah, you have a point.

> Nor do I use JEMM386 in everyday work, as I run a "pure" V6.22 MS-DOS
> and do not need the extra features.   I am only saying that you ought
> not so-quickly "dismiss" the idea of using an "EMM" driver.   They DO
> have their uses!

Yes, but not necessarily for EMS. Not that I hate EMS or prefer XMS or
DPMI or anything, just saying, sometimes it's less crucial than it
seems. I'm glad we have it, obviously, but I don't use it a lot these
days. But that's just my own weird (temporary?) habits.

Maybe I should load it up automatically for a week or so and see what
happens.   :-)

> I must DISAGREE:  EMM386 may have been written for "EMS" memory
> but it EVOLVED into Microsoft's protected-mode provider and was
> NEVER merely a "backwards compatibility" EMS handler!

MS doesn't even support EMS at all in NTVDM these days. I know Win9x
had it, but nowadays you have nothing but DPMI. This is why all the
various DPMI "limits" and bugs are so painful, there is literally
nothing else. But their code is old and bitrotted and nobody cares
anymore, so it is left to die. And Win64 just speeds that up by
focusing on other, newer things.

> ONly a FEW factors, since a "protection trap" is a "PROTECTION TRAP!"
> for any AMD CPU as well as for Intel CPUs!   All vendors "watch" this
> type of compatibility VERY closely, which is why I have NO qualms re:
> buying an AMD CPU.   They are usually less expensive and WORTHWHILE!!

I know there are a few minor quirks, but yes, AMD deserves high praise
for its products.

>> In a way, it's a great idea (and one that PatV often mentioned) to
>> bring DOS into the 21st century, but it basically means rewriting
>> everything, which is very very unlikely to happen. (Kickstarter,
>> anyone?) Tons could be improved (and I'd expect compatibility to be a
>> top goal, too). However, I know I'm dreaming here, it won't happen.
> I don't think it is as NECESSARY at you think!

It's not necessary at all, but when the current crop of computers die
out, we will buy new ones, and they will be less compatible, etc. etc.
So eventually everything dies. It's kinda crappy, I don't really like
it. Can't we just have some stability? No, apparently not. It's all a
chase after the wind. (And don't tell me about Windows or Linux, they
aren't stable, lots of "barely" old software doesn't work anymore.)

> We need NO more "hardware", CERTAINLY NOT any damned 64-bitters
> having 64-GB of memory, when in fact Intel/Microsoft never REALLY
> learned to use 32-bit or even 16-bit systems all that well!   Same for
> DOS -- USE IT a little BETTER, and maybe it CAN do the job,
> EXACTLY as it is now!!

I agree, but nobody else does. Like I said, some things (e.g. GCC)
work quite well at most things but are horribly inefficient and quite
kludgy and bloated. Has C really changed that much? No. Optimizations?
Portability? No. It's just over time things just get worse. But I
guess their goals are different.

Surely Win7 should never need 1 GB just to function, but that's where
we're at, and it hasn't changed. What can you do? Even Fedora or
Ubuntu need a lot.     :-/

Jack, perhaps you should read what Niklaus Wirth had to say back in
1995, "Plea for Lean Software". Unfortunately, it seems that nobody
listened. (Obviously we DOS users appreciate small size and footprint,
but apparently no one else does!)


This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to