>> > IEEE-754 compatible FPU are part of every Intel CPU since the 486,
>>
>>Correction, 586. ;-)
>
> Sorry, but I am right here. The i486 was the first Intel CPU to
> include the FPU, well before the Intel Pentium...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486#Differences_between_i386_and_i486
>
At 09:53 AM 8/4/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> > At 10:20 PM 8/3/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
> >>In my defense, I maybe? should've just taken the easy way out and used
> >>DJGPP (which is 20+ years old, and that's as DOS as it gets, almost
> >>...). Bu
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 10:20 PM 8/3/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>>In my defense, I maybe? should've just taken the easy way out and used
>>DJGPP (which is 20+ years old, and that's as DOS as it gets, almost
>>...). But I didn't see a huge need or advantage.
>
> Nev
Op 4-8-2011 7:20, Rugxulo schreef:
> Hi,
> FreeDOS "BASE" is strictly mimicking MS-DOS core stuff they included.
> But it lacks DOSSHELL or QBASIC, at least in "BASE". So, for average
I did include FD-Shell 0.10 in FreeDOS, per earlier suggestion from
someone. I just dislike the color scheme it u
At 02:01 AM 8/4/2011, c...@bttr-software.de wrote:
> >> Okay, I wasn't sure if you were writing it all in pure ASM or not!
> >
> > I have been having serious health problem for quite a few years, but
> > rest assured, I am NOT mentally ill
>
>Now that's offensive. And hilarious.
My intention was c
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
> Did even QBASIC support MBF? I haven't used it but barely recently,
> but I seem to remember that even it lacked some (minor?) compatibility
> to GW-BASIC.
Not internally. There were separate CVSMBF/CVDMBF and MKSMBF$/MKDMBF$ to
do the conversions, and a swi
>> Okay, I wasn't sure if you were writing it all in pure ASM or not!
>
> I have been having serious health problem for quite a few years, but
> rest assured, I am NOT mentally ill
Now that's offensive. And hilarious.
Regards,
Christian
---
At 10:20 PM 8/3/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>In my defense, I maybe? should've just taken the easy way out and used
>DJGPP (which is 20+ years old, and that's as DOS as it gets, almost
>...). But I didn't see a huge need or advantage.
Never really was "DOS", always an attempt to prevent those Unix geeks
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 01:59 PM 8/3/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>>Hence I had to basically tweak my own makefile *and* spend a long time
>>trying to pretend I understand all the 16-bit memory models
>>(confusing!).
>>
>>Anyways, the main problem was actually th
At 01:59 PM 8/3/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> > At 08:10 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> >>On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would not call BWBASIC "weak" but including it would give users a
> >> > "basic" scriptin
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
> BTW, Steve, didn't you write your own BASIC somewhere? It was (is?) on
> SourceForge, but I never tried it.
I started to. zD and I couldn't figure out how we were going to handle
variables, so it didn't get off the ground.
Wouldn't have been very GW-compati
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 08:10 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>>
>> > I would not call BWBASIC "weak" but including it would give users a
>> > "basic" scripting tool which goes beyond the DOS batch scripting.
12 matches
Mail list logo
