On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Like I said, Win2k / XP aren't that bad, though they have quite a few > catches and omissions. It gets worse later on, but it depends on > whether you think the tradeoff is worth it (or have the time, > patience, knowledge, desire to bother trying to install older stuff > and accept incomplete functionality).
XP works fine here. 2K works fine on an older box that doesn't have the RAM to properly run XP. I avoided Vista, but Win7 works well on the SOs laptop. The issues here haven't been whether something runs - it's been UI changes, and figuring out where MS put a particular function in the new version, because you don't get to it like you did before. (DOS apps don't run at all under Win7, unless you use a VM, but I found a version that does of the only DOS app the SO used - a DOS port of the old Unix game Larn.) >> I din't care about DOS compatibility - the DOS stuff I used all ran >> fine in an NTVDM. > > Trust me, it's not as perfect as it seems, though yes, for what it > does, it does fairly well. I didn't say it was perfect. I said it worked for me. >> Like I said elsewhere, it ran all the DOS stuff *I* used with no >> problem so I essentially didn't *care*. > > That's more of a coincidence (or your minimal needs) than a true > testament to compatibility. Simply put, most people "didn't care" > anymore or preferred heavier APIs, but having an incomplete / > half-broken subsystem doesn't help them stay firm either. Yes. So? I freely admit NTVDM and DOS compatibility leave somewhat to be desired, and there will be stuff that doesn't run or will have problems. I don't care, because it works for what I do with it. > Granted, perhaps DOS native binaries aren't the easiest or greatest > things to lug around for ages, but I don't know of a true "universal" > solution. Scripts? (Lua?) Bytecode? (Inferno?) We probably shouldn't > have separate binaries for every single x86 OS, but for some people, > source compatibility is "good enough". Too bad they make so many > horrible assumptions in the process. There's no such thing as a true universal solution. (But then, how many folks *need* one? Most folks either just run one platform, or don't *expect* to have the same programs available everywhere. The folks most interested will be *developers* trying to target multiple platforms.) The closest is a "Write once, run anywhere" solution like Java. Code is compiled to a tokenized binary targeted at an arbitrary virtual machine implemented by the Java runtime. If there *is* a Java runtime for what you have, the code will run on it. Java runtimes exist for almost everything. (You still have to be aware of various issues - it's possible to write non-portable code in Java.) You lug about DOS native binaries and deal with compatibility issues because you either haven't found anything else that will do the same job, or there is something but you would rather deal with the issues than switch. One interesting trend is wider use of scripting, because current hardware can run script languages fast enough to make them competitive with other languages. I'm seeing an increasing amount of stuff written in Python, which is available for Windows, Linux, and OS/X, using widget libraries like Qt so it largely looks and acts the same on any supported platform. ______ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122712 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
