www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++.dos.32-bits - X32 and DOSEMU

reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> writes:
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
parent reply "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
    It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.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
next sibling parent reply Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
"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     It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.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
next sibling parent "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
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
prev sibling next sibling parent "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
prev sibling parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
"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
parent reply Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
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
next sibling parent reply "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
parent Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
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
prev sibling parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> writes:
"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
next sibling parent Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
 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
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"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
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
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
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
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
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
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%




 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, had
 problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.



Jun 06 2002
next sibling parent "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"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
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> writes:
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
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
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
prev sibling parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
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
parent reply "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
next sibling parent "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
prev sibling parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
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
parent reply "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
"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




 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 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
parent reply "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho NOSPAM hotmail.com> writes:
    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
parent "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> writes:
"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