c++.dos.32-bits - X32 and DOSEMU
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> Jun 02 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> Jun 02 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 02 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 04 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 04 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 04 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 04 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> Jun 04 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 04 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 04 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 05 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 05 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 06 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> Jun 08 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 08 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> Jun 03 2002
As I promised, I tried to run a DOS extended program produced by DMC under DOSEMU. It doesn't work - it just prints the message "Fatal allocating DOS memory", and exits. DOSEMU version is 0.99.8, and uses FreeDOS kernel (www.freedos.org). I compiled the same source with DJGPP (go32v2 extender) and BCC32 (converted to WDOSX-0.96 DOS extendended program), and they both work. I even ran DOOM 1.9 for DOS (it uses DOS/4GW from Rational Software), and it works perfectly. Maybe it's something wrong with X32, if all other DOS extenders run without problems? Laurentiu
Jun 02 2002
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but faster,
smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:adctc8$2vmn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
As I promised, I tried to run a DOS extended program produced by DMC under
DOSEMU. It doesn't work - it just prints the message "Fatal allocating
memory", and exits.
DOSEMU version is 0.99.8, and uses FreeDOS kernel (www.freedos.org). I
compiled the same source with DJGPP (go32v2 extender) and BCC32 (converted
to WDOSX-0.96 DOS extendended program), and they both work. I even ran
1.9 for DOS (it uses DOS/4GW from Rational Software), and it works
perfectly. Maybe it's something wrong with X32, if all other DOS
run without problems?
Laurentiu
Jun 02 2002
"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated. By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry. If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but faster, smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
<g> I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX gave/gives... It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad... Jan
Jun 02 2002
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> About size, I cannot agree more! But about performance... X32 doesn't properly align its stack to para (which generates severe performance degradation - maybe it's also dependent of DMC generated code, dunno), I heard it crashes under XP and I saw it dying under DOSEMU. And I still haven't heard of any update after May15th 2001 - too bad... :( Laurentiu "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad... Jan
Jun 03 2002
The problem is that X32 does not work well under modern machines.
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje
news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...
"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but faster,
smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
<g>
I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
Jan
Jun 03 2002
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...<g> I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad... Jan
I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily, but DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying customers are using that). I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but it seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't we? Laurentiu
Jun 04 2002
Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...<g> I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad... Jan
I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily, but DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying customers are using that). I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but it seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't we?
If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want to use DOSX on XP??? Win32 console makes a lot more sense. Jan
Jun 04 2002
I use regularlly some DOS apps under XP, so it has sense.
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje
news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5 smartsoft.cc...
Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...
<g>
I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
Jan
I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I
understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily,
DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying
are using that). I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but
seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't
If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
DOSX on XP???
Win32 console makes a lot more sense.
Jan
Jun 04 2002
For existing applications yes... For stuff you have the sources off...??? Jan "Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:I use regularlly some DOS apps under XP, so it has sense. "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5 smartsoft.cc...Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1 smartsoft.cc...<g> I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad... Jan
I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily,
DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying
are using that). I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but
seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't
If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
DOSX on XP??? Win32 console makes a lot more sense. Jan
Jun 04 2002
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5 smartsoft.cc...If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
DOSX on XP??? Win32 console makes a lot more sense. Jan
Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :) I still remember about MapleV3: it had a Windows version (Win32 GUI, very nice, but took 8M only for the GUI part) and a DOS extended version, console only, which needed no memory besides 2M for its mathematical kernel and the PharLap extender. And with a machine with 32M of RAM, Win95+nice GUI was no match for DOS mode + DOS extender. And it was much faster, too... (less swapping, I guess :) Laurentiu
Jun 04 2002
Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
Yes it does! I nevertheless would create difference executables for the different platforms... Jan
Jun 04 2002
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adj61s$1r98$1 digitaldaemon.com...Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32 program and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions didn't work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames, had problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.
Jun 04 2002
Dual-mode programs... yes! There were some DOS extenders that could execute Win32 console programs without transforming them to DOS programs, like WDOSX did. I mean same EXE executed as Win32 console under Win32, and as DOS extended app under DOS, Win3, etc. For example PharLap DOSXNT (MSVC 1.52 used it), or Borland's 32RTM (Borland C++ 4.x). And on the free software side, RSXNT, which unfortunately gave exception 0D under DOSEmu 0.66 (last time I tried). The only disadvantage is needing an external extender file, and an external DLL (RSXNT only). Why didn't DOS exes handle long file names? There's a DOS API for this, at least from Win9x (DJGPP creates DOS-extended programs that use long filenames under Win9x, and, with a special program that they also have in the distribution, even under WinNT family OSes)... Must be a RTL issue, probably. Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adjgf1$261m$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adj61s$1r98$1 digitaldaemon.com...Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small
with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from
machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do
i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32
and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions didn't work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames, had problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.
Jun 05 2002
Long filenames aren't a dos feature (although they are a win9x feature), and didn't work on NT, etc. There wasn't really any cost to a dual mode program. The exe file was twice as large, but that didn't affect load or run time, since only half of it ever got loaded. (I also ran into a lot of trouble doing things like setting the environment variable with a win32 executable and spawning a dos executable which couldn't read it, and vice versa. Going all dual mode made all these problems just go away.) "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adkivc$70r$1 digitaldaemon.com...Dual-mode programs... yes! There were some DOS extenders that could
Win32 console programs without transforming them to DOS programs, like
did. I mean same EXE executed as Win32 console under Win32, and as DOS extended app under DOS, Win3, etc. For example PharLap DOSXNT (MSVC 1.52 used it), or Borland's 32RTM (Borland C++ 4.x). And on the free software side, RSXNT, which unfortunately gave exception 0D under DOSEmu 0.66 (last time I tried). The only disadvantage is needing an external extender
and an external DLL (RSXNT only). Why didn't DOS exes handle long file names? There's a DOS API for this,
least from Win9x (DJGPP creates DOS-extended programs that use long filenames under Win9x, and, with a special program that they also have in the distribution, even under WinNT family OSes)... Must be a RTL issue, probably. Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adjgf1$261m$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adj61s$1r98$1 digitaldaemon.com...Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small
with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from
machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or
with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do
i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32
and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions
work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames, had problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.
Jun 05 2002
Hmmm... aren't you limited to 64k, for the DOS stub of the PE image? Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:admft6$22v7$1 digitaldaemon.com...Long filenames aren't a dos feature (although they are a win9x feature),
didn't work on NT, etc. There wasn't really any cost to a dual mode
The exe file was twice as large, but that didn't affect load or run time, since only half of it ever got loaded. (I also ran into a lot of trouble doing things like setting the
variable with a win32 executable and spawning a dos executable which couldn't read it, and vice versa. Going all dual mode made all these problems just go away.) "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adkivc$70r$1 digitaldaemon.com...Dual-mode programs... yes! There were some DOS extenders that could
Win32 console programs without transforming them to DOS programs, like
did. I mean same EXE executed as Win32 console under Win32, and as DOS extended app under DOS, Win3, etc. For example PharLap DOSXNT (MSVC
used it), or Borland's 32RTM (Borland C++ 4.x). And on the free
side, RSXNT, which unfortunately gave exception 0D under DOSEmu 0.66
time I tried). The only disadvantage is needing an external extender
and an external DLL (RSXNT only). Why didn't DOS exes handle long file names? There's a DOS API for this,
least from Win9x (DJGPP creates DOS-extended programs that use long filenames under Win9x, and, with a special program that they also have
the distribution, even under WinNT family OSes)... Must be a RTL issue, probably. Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adjgf1$261m$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adj61s$1r98$1 digitaldaemon.com...Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small
with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90%
allmachines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or
with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do
i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for
hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32
and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions
work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames, had problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.
Jun 06 2002
Yes, this is a restriction of the PE format.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adn4e7$2o6c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Hmmm... aren't you limited to 64k, for the DOS stub of the PE image?
Laurentiu
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:admft6$22v7$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Long filenames aren't a dos feature (although they are a win9x feature),
didn't work on NT, etc. There wasn't really any cost to a dual mode
The exe file was twice as large, but that didn't affect load or run
since only half of it ever got loaded.
(I also ran into a lot of trouble doing things like setting the
variable with a win32 executable and spawning a dos executable which
couldn't read it, and vice versa. Going all dual mode made all these
problems just go away.)
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message
news:adkivc$70r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Dual-mode programs... yes! There were some DOS extenders that could
Win32 console programs without transforming them to DOS programs, like
did. I mean same EXE executed as Win32 console under Win32, and as
extended app under DOS, Win3, etc. For example PharLap DOSXNT (MSVC
used it), or Borland's 32RTM (Borland C++ 4.x). And on the free
side, RSXNT, which unfortunately gave exception 0D under DOSEmu 0.66
time I tried). The only disadvantage is needing an external extender
and an external DLL (RSXNT only).
Why didn't DOS exes handle long file names? There's a DOS API for
at
least from Win9x (DJGPP creates DOS-extended programs that use long
filenames under Win9x, and, with a special program that they also have
the distribution, even under WinNT family OSes)... Must be a RTL
probably.
Laurentiu
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adjgf1$261m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:adj61s$1r98$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small
with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90%
all
machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or
with DOSEmu). If it's about console mode programs, that only do
i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for
hardware, it's ideal. It beats Java in any case! :)
What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32
and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions
work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames,
problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.
Jun 06 2002
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adn4e7$2o6c$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hmmm... aren't you limited to 64k, for the DOS stub of the PE image? Laurentiu
No.
Jun 06 2002
How is this, "no"??? I understood you use the PE stub (that small stuff that usually displays "This program must be run under Win32"), which is limited to 64kbytes in size, according to PE spec. What did I miss here? Could you please be a little more explicit? You really confused me with your "no"... <g> Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adoeh7$14o0$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adn4e7$2o6c$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hmmm... aren't you limited to 64k, for the DOS stub of the PE image? Laurentiu
No.
Jun 08 2002
The offset to the new exe part of the file is a 32 bit value. -Walter "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adsa9t$2fa1$1 digitaldaemon.com...How is this, "no"??? I understood you use the PE stub (that small stuff that usually displays "This program must be run under Win32"), which is limited to 64kbytes in size, according to PE spec. What did I miss here? Could you please be a little more explicit? You really confused me with your "no"... <g> Laurentiu "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adoeh7$14o0$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adn4e7$2o6c$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hmmm... aren't you limited to 64k, for the DOS stub of the PE image? Laurentiu
No.
Jun 08 2002
It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you maintaining it now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he the same guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran? I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify OPTLINK to generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M executables, why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the DMC requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in another extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g> I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;) Laurentiu "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated. By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry. If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but faster, smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
Jun 03 2002
The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce
system, and maybe the official web site too.
I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in that
case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the
original author, since I was only the web site developer.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you maintaining it
now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he the same
guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify OPTLINK to
generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the DMC
requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in another
extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be
maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but faster,
smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
Jun 03 2002
I am not the author of DOS/32A, nor the mantainer due to a problems of
missunderstanding the license.
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:adf8o1$pno$1 digitaldaemon.com...
The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce
system, and maybe the official web site too.
I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in that
case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the
original author, since I was only the web site developer.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you maintaining
now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he the
guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify OPTLINK to
generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the DMC
requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in another
extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be
maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
Jun 03 2002
I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the project admin. Therefore I assumed you're developping it... Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications? Walter, would this be of interest for you? Probably, at least some specs would be needed... Laurentiu "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adf8o1$pno$1 digitaldaemon.com...The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce system, and maybe the official web site too. I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in that case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the original author, since I was only the web site developer. "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you maintaining
now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he the
guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran? I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify OPTLINK to generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the DMC requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in another extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g> I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;) Laurentiu "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated. By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry. If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
smaller, and open source, take a look at http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
Jun 03 2002
I was (in past) the coordinator of the project, but due to license
issues it could not be called DOS/32A, so I removed all the files and the
docs from the site. Nowadays you can only download the original 7.1 version
original by Narech, and not the my derived 8.00 version.
The project was a bit abandoned until Narech noticed a bit of interest
in DOS programming in the OpenWatcom group, so he decided to release it as
Open Source (I must remember it was a commercial product).
I do not know if he would be interested in modifying it, but there is
nothing bad in download the program with the sources and adapt it to be
compatible with DMC as far as it is not called DOS/32 A nor DOS/32 Advanced.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adfgj4$11no$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the
admin. Therefore I assumed you're developping it...
Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for
supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications? Walter, would this be
interest for you? Probably, at least some specs would be needed...
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:adf8o1$pno$1 digitaldaemon.com...
The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce
system, and maybe the official web site too.
I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in that
case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the
original author, since I was only the web site developer.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you maintaining
now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he the
guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify OPTLINK
generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the
requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in
extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be
maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
smaller, and open source, take a look at
Jun 03 2002
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adfhl4$12s2$1 digitaldaemon.com...I was (in past) the coordinator of the project, but due to license issues it could not be called DOS/32A, so I removed all the files and the docs from the site. Nowadays you can only download the original 7.1
original by Narech, and not the my derived 8.00 version.
So, it would be enough to change the name, in order to make your version available?The project was a bit abandoned until Narech noticed a bit of interest in DOS programming in the OpenWatcom group, so he decided to release it as Open Source (I must remember it was a commercial product). I do not know if he would be interested in modifying it, but there is nothing bad in download the program with the sources and adapt it to be compatible with DMC as far as it is not called DOS/32 A nor DOS/32
Yep, sounds challenging enough! <g> I tried to adapt WDOSX, but DMC Win32 code uses CreateSemaphore and ReleaseSemaphore, so when I provided my own dummies, nothing was displayed! Well, I managed to make it work with Borland's free command line tools, so it's not that bad... Laurentiu"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adfgj4$11no$1 digitaldaemon.com...I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the
admin. Therefore I assumed you're developping it... Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications? Walter, would this be
interest for you? Probably, at least some specs would be needed... Laurentiu "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adf8o1$pno$1 digitaldaemon.com...The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce system, and maybe the official web site too. I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in
case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the original author, since I was only the web site developer. "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you
itnow? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he
sameguy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran? I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify
togenerate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the
requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in
extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g> I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;) Laurentiu "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated. By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry. If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
smaller, and open source, take a look at
Jun 03 2002
Yes, changing the name, the version scheme and the copyright and author
is enought, since the distributions license is Apache-like.
Althought this is not a trivial task because there are a lot of files of
diferent types in the distribution (docs, sources, ...).
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adfldv$174i$1 digitaldaemon.com...
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:adfhl4$12s2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I was (in past) the coordinator of the project, but due to license
issues it could not be called DOS/32A, so I removed all the files and
docs from the site. Nowadays you can only download the original 7.1
original by Narech, and not the my derived 8.00 version.
So, it would be enough to change the name, in order to make your version
available?
The project was a bit abandoned until Narech noticed a bit of
in DOS programming in the OpenWatcom group, so he decided to release it
Open Source (I must remember it was a commercial product).
I do not know if he would be interested in modifying it, but there
nothing bad in download the program with the sources and adapt it to be
compatible with DMC as far as it is not called DOS/32 A nor DOS/32
Yep, sounds challenging enough! <g> I tried to adapt WDOSX, but DMC Win32
code uses CreateSemaphore and ReleaseSemaphore, so when I provided my own
dummies, nothing was displayed! Well, I managed to make it work with
Borland's free command line tools, so it's not that bad...
Laurentiu
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adfgj4$11no$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the
admin. Therefore I assumed you're developping it...
Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for
supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications? Walter, would this
of
interest for you? Probably, at least some specs would be needed...
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:adf8o1$pno$1 digitaldaemon.com...
The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom
system, and maybe the official web site too.
I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in
case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech NOSPAM telia.com), the
original author, since I was only the web site developer.
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje
news:adf7ni$okl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g> Are you
it
now? I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he
same
guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify
to
generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are
DMC
requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in
extender? X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to
maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
Laurentiu
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:addjfo$s3r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
smaller, and open source, take a look at
Jun 03 2002
"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adflku$17hc$1 digitaldaemon.com...Yes, changing the name, the version scheme and the copyright and
is enought, since the distributions license is Apache-like. Althought this is not a trivial task because there are a lot of files
diferent types in the distribution (docs, sources, ...).
Can't this be done from Perl? <g>. Now, putting jokes aside, I think it would be a very interesting project. Are the "-mx" requirements available for download from DigitalMars? Laurentiu
Jun 03 2002