Hi Friends,
I am looking for a simple reminder program in dos, can you please help.
Cheers
Rinaldo
guelpa...@telkomsa.net--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org!
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:30:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 ..
> 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM
> "jumps", MASM "option ljmp", etc).
I won't argue about what opcode is or is not available on 8086, since
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> irrelevant "jz short ..." (when "short" conditional jump is always
>> mandatory for "cpu 8086").
>
> I don't think so.
> Note that short means "8 bit jump" in this context, and NOT
I have to clarify here that my intention was never to compete in any way
with the other algorithms out there. The BSD checksum is a well-known,
and pretty weak (16 bits) checksum. The goal behind bsum was only to
obtain a checksum tool that would run on my 8086 fast enough for me to
not get fru
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:52:06 +, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>> Converting hex nibble to ASCII shouldn't need a jump at all. On the
>> 8086 all jumps are very slow. Best to avoid them entirely if possible.
>> Here you can easily use the old "cmp al,
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> Blair's (16-bit, FD) MD5SUM can do all of those hashes as well. Not sure
> if it'd be faster, though.
I believe that's the one I used. If I understand correctly, the original
author is Colin Plumb, and Blair took the maintenance of it at some p
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:57:59 -0400, dmccunney wrote:
> I have to ask. How many folks *have* platforms now it *wouldn't* run
> on? I suspect the number is *very* small.
Surely, yes. Still, a 700% memory increase for a 10% performance boost
just doesn't feel right. I wrote bsum to cover an extreme
Hi, Eric, always good to hear from you,
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> BSUM (by Mateusz Viste) : 6.0s (100%)
>> CRC32 (by Joe Forster) : 8.5s (70%)
>
>> MD5 (by Colin Plumb): 52.9s (11%)
>> SHA1 (by Colin Plumb) : 85.7s (7%)
>
> Entertaining :-) Still you need
Hi again,
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for
>> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc).
>
> Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 38
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> Splurge on the memory, give it 32 kb or so. It'll "probably" be faster
>> with a bigger buffer.
>
> At the cost of reducing the number of platforms it would be able to run
> on.
I have
Hi Mateusz,
> BSUM (by Mateusz Viste) : 6.0s (100%)
> CRC32 (by Joe Forster) : 8.5s (70%)
...
> MD5 (by Colin Plumb): 52.9s (11%)
> SHA1 (by Colin Plumb) : 85.7s (7%)
Entertaining :-) Still you need to find a good balance
between speed and collision risk. If you want to find
dupli
On 4/10/2017 6:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for
>> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc).
> Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 386SX PC,
> computing various
Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for dos?
Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will.
cheers
DS
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:36:24 + (UTC) Mateusz Viste
writes:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> > It would be interesting to see
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for
> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc).
Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 386SX PC,
computing various checksums of a 2 MiB file. Results below.
BSUM (
14 matches
Mail list logo
