DOS C prompt in "Vista"?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
Thanks.
[public replies please}
P.S. Which is the best newsgroup for these sort of questions?
Michael Black
This is about old computers. Some of us have never run Windows,
so why would we know about what seems to be some new version of it
that is barely out of the gate?
YOur problem isn't your question, your problem is that you don't
have a clue where to ask.
Michael
Charlton Wilbur
MB> This is about old computers. Some of us have never run
MB> Windows, so why would we know about what seems to be some new
MB> version of it that is barely out of the gate?
On the other hand, the original Mac was 22 years ago (nearly 23), and
Windows 2.0 was what, 1987? which makes it nearly 20 years old.
Desktop and personal computers are rapidly becoming on-topic.
Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when Windows
95 becomes on topic.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Michael Black wrote:
> This is about old computers. Some of us have never run Windows,
> so why would we know about what seems to be some new version of it
> that is barely out of the gate?
Well, I think my QB 4.5 stuff, on 5" floppies, is about 15 years old.
My "Telix" (aka Procomm) dial up program is about the same age. Is
that old enough? Indeed, some of my BASIC programs were hand retyped
from Teletype time-sharing listings that were 30-39 years old and run
on GW-BASIC.
Isn't a program 39 years old qualify as being "old stuff"?
Charles Richmond
on topic for <a.f.c.>:
Mi$uck has a very long history of *not* supporting previous OS's
and previous versions of programs. I have a friend who wrote a
cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
in the field and is on his own.
So to answer your quesion directly: if Mi$uck has *not* screwed
you in this way yet, it is only a matter of (probably very little)
time.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Richard E Maine
> My "Telix" (aka Procomm) dial up program is about the same age.
Ah. Procomm. I recall Procomm (or maybe it was Procomm plus) being a
victim of computer speedup. I used it for a long time, but finally had
to abandon it when my computers got fast enough that the program would
no longer start without crashing. My inference, based on the symptoms,
was that it was trying to determine the speed of the system, probably to
tune its timing, but hit a divide-by-zero error when its speed test code
ran fast enough to give zero elapsed time to the (poor) resolution of
the PC clock.
I've had lots of other programs that failed to be compatible with OS
version upgrades (particularly from MS), but that's one case I recall of
a program being incompatible with CPU speed, nothing else reelevant
having changed.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Richard E Maine wrote:
> Ah. Procomm. I recall Procomm (or maybe it was Procomm plus) being a
> victim of computer speedup. I used it for a long time, but finally had
> to abandon it when my computers got fast enough that the program would
> no longer start without crashing. My inference, based on the symptoms,
> was that it was trying to determine the speed of the system, probably to
> tune its timing, but hit a divide-by-zero error when its speed test code
> ran fast enough to give zero elapsed time to the (poor) resolution of
> the PC clock.
It sounds like there may have been a timer loop in the program, where
the program just looped around until a set clock time went by, just as
you said. It may have been incrementing a counter or some sort. As
machines got too fast the arithmetic instructions overflowed or
otherwise failed by the time the clock got up.
I had this cute little Christmas program from PC/XT days (CGA), it had
a little train going around a tree with a mouse and cat all happy
together, and played a little song. It gets math errors on modern
computers, to my disappointment.
My Telix (which was another program similar to Procomm) works on my
Pentinum 120 although I don't use it often. Perhaps it too will crash
on my next machine.
My DOS programs ran super fast on my Pentium, which is one reason I
want to keep them; they work fast! All the new junk is so bloated it's
slow and I'm scared of what later generations will do. (I use Win 95
now and Word 6.0; geez, I hope Word 6 will transfer over).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Charles Richmond wrote:
> I have a friend who wrote a
> cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
> Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
> in the field and is on his own.
When you say "support", do you mean the VB programs will no longer run
at all?
What OS and vers of VB do you have that isn't working? (I have VB 4
and presume that will work, though I'm actually more worried about my
much older Quick Basic Compiler.)
Sometimes "support" means old programs WILL run, but there is no more
tech support for them if there is trouble. (On the mainframe, we have
ancient stuff supposedly "not supported" for years, but it runs fine as
long as you don't get fancy.)
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> When you say "support", do you mean the VB programs will no longer run
> at all?
> What OS and vers of VB do you have that isn't working? (I have VB 4
> and presume that will work, though I'm actually more worried about my
> much older Quick Basic Compiler.)
jan96 m'soft developers conference at moscone center ... had a bunch
of stuff about internet ... but the constantly repeated theme and on
all the banners was something about preserving your investment ... aka
the m'soft developers worked in vs/basic ... and m'soft was promising
to perserve and enhance vs/basic ... and continue to make extensive
use of it in their infrastructures and products.
this contributed to the automatic scripting in various application
files ... and a major evolving internet attack vector where malicious
vs/basic scripts were included as part of various files arriving over
the network for automatic execution.
in purely local area network, non-hostile, non-adversarial environment
(aka closed business operations) it didn't represent much of a threat
... but moved to the wide-open internet environment ... it provided no
countermeasures to hostile attacks.
lots of posts about all kinds of threats, exploits, vulnerabilities,
and fraud
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#fraud
Justa Lurker
Charles Richmond is a chronic malcontent when it comes to Microsoft;
they probably rejected him when he applied for a job there, or something
like that.
Nothing to see here kids, move on.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>
>My DOS programs ran super fast on my Pentium, which is one reason I
>want to keep them; they work fast! All the new junk is so bloated it's
>slow and I'm scared of what later generations will do. (I use Win 95
>now and Word 6.0; geez, I hope Word 6 will transfer over).
Gee, Word 6.0, that's from Office 4.3, I think. 1991, that's almost
old enough for this group. I am sure that at some point it will fail
to install. I can't get Word 1.1a to install on Win98. :-) Either
that, or it wouldn't run once installed.
--
ArarghMail612 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
>
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>> I have a friend who wrote a
>> cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
>> Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
>> in the field and is on his own.
>
>When you say "support", do you mean the VB programs will no longer run
>at all?
The older compiled versions won't. VB has need of a rather large
runtime set of dll's. At some point in time, those will not be able
to be installed, for some reason. Don't work, Mi$uck will find a
reason.
>What OS and vers of VB do you have that isn't working?
>(I have VB 4
>and presume that will work, though I'm actually more worried about my
>much older Quick Basic Compiler.)
For QuickBasic (any version: includes PDS, VBDOS), worst case is
create a small FAT DOS partition, and boot to and use it there. The
EXEs might work when copied to the new system.
>Sometimes "support" means old programs WILL run, but there is no more
>tech support for them if there is trouble. (On the mainframe, we have
>ancient stuff supposedly "not supported" for years, but it runs fine as
>long as you don't get fancy.)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> I have a friend who wrote a
>>> cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
>>> Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
>>> in the field and is on his own.
>>
<snip>
>
>Charles Richmond is a chronic malcontent when it comes to Microsoft;
>they probably rejected him when he applied for a job there, or something
>like that.
>
>Nothing to see here kids, move on.
Why? I happen to agree with him. I got my attitude about Mi$uck when
they decided to charge me for a service that I had already paid for.
(call in support for a product) This was just about the time that
they released a buggy windows 3.0 and they started getting a gazillion
support calls. They started to try to charge everybody for support,
even those who had older products that came with call in support. They
even wanted me to pay for the priviledge for reporting a problem, that
I didn't even care about getting the fix for. (I had already found a
way around the problem) This was all in the early 90's. IMO, things
have been going downhill ever since.
doo...@snowy.net.au
Richard E Maine wrote:
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> > My "Telix" (aka Procomm) dial up program is about the same age.
>
> Ah. Procomm. I recall Procomm (or maybe it was Procomm plus) being a
> victim of computer speedup. I used it for a long time, but finally had
> to abandon it when my computers got fast enough that the program would
> no longer start without crashing. My inference, based on the symptoms,
> was that it was trying to determine the speed of the system, probably to
> tune its timing, but hit a divide-by-zero error when its speed test code
> ran fast enough to give zero elapsed time to the (poor) resolution of
> the PC clock.
This applied to any program built with certain versions
of the watcom c compiler/linker.
It came to light when the Pentium 333 was introduced
The runtime was designed to loop a million times (I think)
and then count the number of elapsed seconds (rounded)
and use this as the divisor to calculate some measure of "speed"
It was possible to patch the exe to bypass this check
Phil
CBFalconer
Will these do? All in my util directory, some are my own code.
ef 4096 06-Nov-82 16:00:00
mapsym .exe 18028 16-Oct-85 04:00:02
symdeb .exe 37023 16-Oct-85 04:00:02
ne .com 32377 05-Jun-86 13:30:02
objtoasm.exe 21154 04-Jul-86 14:44:22
exe2bin .exe 3052 24-Jul-87 00:00:04
cdeclold.exe 17361 21-Oct-87 09:47:36
optfig .exe 2172 24-Nov-87 ........
entab .com 4752 07-Dec-87 16:50:02
lib .exe 49663 01-Feb-88 13:00:02
linkold .exe 65541 17-Mar-88 00:00:02
fdiff .com 2043 13-Apr-88 21:46:06
optasm .fig 2760 19-Apr-88 13:59:16
qsort .exe 23531 11-Jul-88 08:00:02
optasm .exe 71620 20-Jul-88 21:13:02
pkpak .exe 21722 02-Aug-88 00:00:02
pkunpak .exe 15114 02-Aug-88 00:00:02
tlib .exe 31106 29-Aug-88 02:00:02
tlink .exe 21719 29-Aug-88 02:00:02
more .com 435 18-Oct-88 11:30:46
refrence.exe 21586 02-Nov-88 08:30:58
vsn .com 1082 06-Jan-89 12:00:02
stripeof.exe 8242 08-Jan-89 22:34:50
fdate .com 1059 22-Feb-89 16:59:46
detab .exe 10226 18-Mar-89 03:05:02
lfcrcrlf.exe 7362 18-Mar-89 16:09:10
powerof2.exe 4818 24-Mar-89 14:06:26
addffs .exe 7890 05-Apr-89 12:43:06
validate.exe 19378 23-Apr-89 22:10:24
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Peter Flass
You mean there are people who *aren't*? I know some bought-and-paid-for
Mi$uck droids, and some people who are too afraid to veer from the party
line, but hardly anone else. I never applied for a job at Mi$uck, and I
doubt I ever will. I don't want them dead, just chopped down to level
the playing field, even though it would probably cost me a lot of money
in the stock market.
Justa Lurker
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>> might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>>
>> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>> wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>> them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>
>
> XP gave me enough goddamn problems. FPOS.
>
> -gc
>
What's the matter, Gene ? Windows XP too complicated for you ?
Dave Garland
Maine) wrote:
>Ah. Procomm. I recall Procomm (or maybe it was Procomm plus) being a
>victim of computer speedup. I used it for a long time, but finally had
>to abandon it when my computers got fast enough that the program would
>no longer start without crashing. My inference, based on the symptoms,
>was that it was trying to determine the speed of the system, probably to
>tune its timing, but hit a divide-by-zero error when its speed test code
>ran fast enough to give zero elapsed time to the (poor) resolution of
>the PC clock.
Interesting. As it happens, today I was working on a computer that had
Procomm runing in a DOS box (the building's HVAC system was on the other
end of the line). The computer was a Sempron 2200+ (or something like
that) running XP Pro.
The problem wasn't with Procomm running on a 1.5GHz machine, though, the
Windows print spooler had gone catatonic.
Dave
William J. Leary Jr.
news:1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>
> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
> wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
> them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
I've run QuickBasic 4.5 itself and several programs written with it in the
Vista command prompt. The IDE and compilers work fine. As for the programs,
some work, some don't. Depends on how cozy they got with the hardware.
> P.S. Which is the best newsgroup for these sort of questions?
There are some Vista news groups accessable from the Vista evaluation pages.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/
- Bill
Frank McCoy
>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>
>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>
>Thanks.
>
>[public replies please}
>
My guess is that the program DOSbox, which is a Windows-Based program to
run old DOS based programs will probably still run under Vista, even if
Vista doesn't support a DOS prompt. I use DOSbox for running just about
all the old DOS programs that otherwise just die running much too fast
or otherwise crap out running as a DOS program under Windows. It
brought several hundred of my old proggies back to life. Essentially
it's a DOS emulator running under Windows. NICE program.
However, I would suspect Vista will support some at least minimal form
of a DOS prompt. There are too many programs out there that need such
still. Batch files, just as one tiny example.
Some things are *very* easy to use in the DOS prompt; but almost
impossible to do from the GUI interface without writing a program.
(Just *try* renaming multiple files, for example.)
It's just that I suspect they'll probably remove the last vestiges of
16-bit support (already limited under XP). You'll probably have
difficulty accessing ports directly too. So, printer handlers will
probably die (those that aren't already dead under XP).
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Frank McCoy
>
>Richard E Maine wrote:
>> Ah. Procomm. I recall Procomm (or maybe it was Procomm plus) being a
>> victim of computer speedup. I used it for a long time, but finally had
>> to abandon it when my computers got fast enough that the program would
>> no longer start without crashing. My inference, based on the symptoms,
>> was that it was trying to determine the speed of the system, probably to
>> tune its timing, but hit a divide-by-zero error when its speed test code
>> ran fast enough to give zero elapsed time to the (poor) resolution of
>> the PC clock.
>
>It sounds like there may have been a timer loop in the program, where
>the program just looped around until a set clock time went by, just as
>you said. It may have been incrementing a counter or some sort. As
>machines got too fast the arithmetic instructions overflowed or
>otherwise failed by the time the clock got up.
>
>I had this cute little Christmas program from PC/XT days (CGA), it had
>a little train going around a tree with a mouse and cat all happy
>together, and played a little song. It gets math errors on modern
>computers, to my disappointment.
>
Most of those old programs like that will run just fine under DOSbox ...
a FREE emulator for old DOS programs like especially the old Hercules or
CGA and EGA programs.
I kept losing old programs as my computer speeded up, until I found out
about the emulator. (I use the special copy that includes
printer-drivers and other fancy stuff. Got my old copy of the Laffer
Utilities to work that way.)
Modern video boards don't seem to do a proper job of running EGA either,
when it comes to character handling; so using DOSbox is the only way I
get THEM to run either; even though the program itself runs under a
Windows DOS prompt; if you can't read the print-stuff on the screen,
it's rather useless.
>My Telix (which was another program similar to Procomm) works on my
>Pentinum 120 although I don't use it often. Perhaps it too will crash
>on my next machine.
>
>My DOS programs ran super fast on my Pentium, which is one reason I
>want to keep them; they work fast! All the new junk is so bloated it's
>slow and I'm scared of what later generations will do. (I use Win 95
>now and Word 6.0; geez, I hope Word 6 will transfer over).
Word 6 goes fine. Just not too compatible with other Word versions.
I'm still using WORDSTAR 7.0C (The last one made, AFAIK). Runs rings
around Word for speed. The graphics handling sucks though.
I'm hoping they do have the DOS prompt for that.
Otherwise, under an emulator, the extra speed will probably vanish.
Michael Roach
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>
>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
your programs.
--
The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are
correct.
-- Ralph Hartley
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when Windows
> 95 becomes on topic.
I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith
> Charles Richmond is a chronic malcontent when it comes to Microsoft;
Many of us round here are - it comes from experience ....
> they probably rejected him when he applied for a job there, or something
... of using their cruft rather than ever wanting to work for them.
> Nothing to see here kids, move on.
See .sig (left side)
Roland Hutchinson
> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when Windows
> 95 becomes on topic.
One had better hope that whatever it is, its name will continue to end in
"x". The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Morten Reistad
Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
>Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when Windows
>> 95 becomes on topic.
>
> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
This whole Vista thing is a little surreal in my surroundings.
My Present POE has been open-source for a long time, and the
PHBs and salescritters have been bribed off with fancy Macs.
My "must have" windows programs run nicely in wine.
I don't expect the 2016 screens I look at to look so different from
the 1996 ones. More pixels, better design, faster, but I still
expect to use a lot of shell-commands, a lot of emacs, and a great
deal of browsing in the browser of the day. Perhaps more video
and audio.
They are already "power-green", using less than 50W, 10-12 of which
are actual photon emissions.
-- mrr
BEN RITCHEY
* An ongoing debate between Hanc...@bbs.Cpcn.Com and All rages on ...
| H> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
| H> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
Yes, via cmd.exe (command mode) ...
--
Be well :^)
: Ben aka cMech http://benritchey.net
:
+ WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-232-4155 any BAUD 8,N,1
--- GoldEd+/DOS v1.1.5cM
# Origin: FamilyNet - The Positronium Repository (8:8/337)
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.familynet-international.org
AZ Nomad
>In article <1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>>
>>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
>your programs.
Have you actually tried that?
I can't imagine it working. The guest OS would run too fast and the host OS
would get choked by the guest's keyboard busy-wait loop and the lack of
vmware tools running on it.
AZ Nomad
>FamilyNet International Newsgate
>* An ongoing debate between Hanc...@bbs.Cpcn.Com and All rages on ...
>| H> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>| H> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>Yes, via cmd.exe (command mode) ...
cmd.exe isn't MS-DOS. It's the NT command line shell.
Try command.com if you want to try and run MS-DOS programs.
Roland Hutchinson
> I don't expect the 2016 screens I look at to look so different from
> the 1996 ones. More pixels, better design, faster, but I still
> expect to use a lot of shell-commands, a lot of emacs, and a great
> deal of browsing in the browser of the day. Perhaps more video
> and audio.
>
> They are already "power-green", using less than 50W, 10-12 of which
> are actual photon emissions.
By 2016 perhaps we will have switched to energy-conserving virtual photons.
Charlton Wilbur
SOS> On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
SOS> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when
>> Windows 95 becomes on topic.
SOS> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
Well, yes; but what new nifty features will that BSD have? And what
foul competitors will our technophobic relatives expect us to support?
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Stan Barr
wrote:
MSDOS works fine in DosEmu, which merely provides an PC environment for
MSDOS*, so I don't see why Virtual PC shouldn't work ok. Come to think of it
PCx on my Power Mac shows no problems running Caldera's DOS-alike either.
* I've just started DosEmu+MSDOS5+F-PC Forth in linux, top reports less than
1% cpu usage idling waiting for keyboard input.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
AZ Nomad
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:00:30 GMT, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Michael Roach <never...@panix.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>>>>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>>>>
>>>>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>>>>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>>>>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>>>>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>>
>>>Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
>>>your programs.
>>
>>Have you actually tried that?
>>
>>I can't imagine it working. The guest OS would run too fast and the host OS
>>would get choked by the guest's keyboard busy-wait loop and the lack of
>>vmware tools running on it.
>MSDOS works fine in DosEmu, which merely provides an PC environment for
>MSDOS*, so I don't see why Virtual PC shouldn't work ok. Come to think of it
>PCx on my Power Mac shows no problems running Caldera's DOS-alike either.
>* I've just started DosEmu+MSDOS5+F-PC Forth in linux, top reports less than
>1% cpu usage idling waiting for keyboard input.
DosEMU != VmWare.
doo...@snowy.net.au
AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Michael Roach <never...@panix.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> >>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> >>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
> >>
> >>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> >>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
> >>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
> >>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>
> >Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
> >your programs.
>
> Have you actually tried that?
> I can't imagine it working. The guest OS would run too fast and the host OS
> would get choked by the guest's keyboard busy-wait loop and the lack of
> vmware tools running on it.
compiler
These worked fine up to windows 2000,
but were finally broken by a windows 2000 security patch,
they run fine at an msdos prompt, in windows 98, under vmware
workstation
running on an xp machine.
Phil
Stan Barr
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:11:15 -0600, Stan Barr <sta...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:00:30 GMT, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
>>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Michael Roach
<never...@panix.com.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>>>>>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>>>>>
>>>>>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>>>>>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>>>>>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>>>>>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>>>
>>>>Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
>>>>your programs.
>>>
>>>Have you actually tried that?
>>>
>>>I can't imagine it working. The guest OS would run too fast and the host OS
>>>would get choked by the guest's keyboard busy-wait loop and the lack of
>>>vmware tools running on it.
>
>>MSDOS works fine in DosEmu, which merely provides an PC environment for
>>MSDOS*, so I don't see why Virtual PC shouldn't work ok.
>DosEMU != VmWare.
I was referring to VirtualPC which IIRC just provides
a PC environment in a similar way to DosEmu.
VmWare I know nothing about :-)
Michael Roach
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Michael Roach <never...@panix.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <1165261191.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
>>>might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>>>
>>>Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
>>>in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
>>>wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
>>>them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
>
>>Try installing MS-DOS in Virtual PC or VMWare. If that works install
>>your programs.
>
>Have you actually tried that?
I have not. Someone on a list I belong to does that with an insurance
package he wrote for MS-DOS but I don't remember which virtual machine
he uses. He does claim that such a setup is in production today.
I do use various linuxes in Virtual PC and am amazed that Firefox in a
256mB virtual session loads and runs faster than on a real 512mB Windows
XP.
>I can't imagine it working. The guest OS would run too fast and the host OS
>would get choked by the guest's keyboard busy-wait loop and the lack of
>vmware tools running on it.
I can imagine it working, but still have the "If that works" caveat in
my prior post.
--
If you think the United States has stood still, who built the largest
shopping center in the world?
-- Richard M. Nixon
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "SOS" == Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>
> SOS> On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
> SOS> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
> >> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when
> >> Windows 95 becomes on topic.
>
> SOS> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
>
> Well, yes; but what new nifty features will that BSD have?
I spent a while thinking about what I'd *like* it to have that I
haven't got already and the only thing I came up with was better protection
against hardware failures (probably in the form of seamless clustering).
Of course I expect the hardware will be faster with a bigger and higher
resolution screen and probably enough storage to hold a sizeable video
library (or whatever other use can be found for the smallish discs that
only hold several terabytes).
With any luck the web browser will start up as fast as vim does
today :)
> And what
> foul competitors will our technophobic relatives expect us to support?
Ah well there I expect an increase in the dumbing down and
obscuring of useful controls coupled with an increased dependency on
connecting to Redmond frequently in order to keep it going. On screen a
great deal of animated eye candy (perhaps featuring a choice of
celebrity animated assistants) to soak up the excess processing power
and make sure the thing runs slowly enough to fuel a demand for faster
hardware.
Morten Reistad
>Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "SOS" == Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>> SOS> On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
>> SOS> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when
>> >> Windows 95 becomes on topic.
>>
>> SOS> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
>>
>> Well, yes; but what new nifty features will that BSD have?
>
> I spent a while thinking about what I'd *like* it to have that I
>haven't got already and the only thing I came up with was better protection
>against hardware failures (probably in the form of seamless clustering).
Amen. I would like to see a common name space for files, like
AFS; and making failovers to available hardware.
>Of course I expect the hardware will be faster with a bigger and higher
>resolution screen and probably enough storage to hold a sizeable video
>library (or whatever other use can be found for the smallish discs that
>only hold several terabytes).
But the bandwith per byte keeps going down.
I can concur with faster video.
I also want the machines to stay SILENT, and go into power-saving
mode without going to a total hibernation. That is so against the
network-centric view.
>
> With any luck the web browser will start up as fast as vim does
>today :)
>
>> And what
>> foul competitors will our technophobic relatives expect us to support?
>
> Ah well there I expect an increase in the dumbing down and
>obscuring of useful controls coupled with an increased dependency on
>connecting to Redmond frequently in order to keep it going. On screen a
>great deal of animated eye candy (perhaps featuring a choice of
>celebrity animated assistants) to soak up the excess processing power
>and make sure the thing runs slowly enough to fuel a demand for faster
>hardware.
What excess processing power ? It seems the x86 processors have hit
the brick wall of speed, and vista as it stands requires pretty high-end
hardware.
We could even make some distribution with "green" credentials, because
it needs less power to run. There is easily 100W difference between what
it takes Vista to run properly, and what it takes a BSD to run well.
-- mrr
AZ Nomad
VmWare is a virtual PC environment where the guest OS is mostly unchanged.
That means that DOS busy wait keyboard input loop would use up most CPU
resources. DosEMU doesn't have DOS code. It is written from the ground up
to implement a DOS compatible environment while running as a user process on
the host system.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
It comes from the four 64 core processors with a gigabyte of on chip
L1 cache in each.
Charles Richmond
>
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > I have a friend who wrote a
> > cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
> > Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
> > in the field and is on his own.
>
> When you say "support", do you mean the VB programs will no longer run
> at all?
> What OS and vers of VB do you have that isn't working? (I have VB 4
> and presume that will work, though I'm actually more worried about my
> much older Quick Basic Compiler.)
>
> Sometimes "support" means old programs WILL run, but there is no more
> tech support for them if there is trouble. (On the mainframe, we have
> ancient stuff supposedly "not supported" for years, but it runs fine as
> long as you don't get fancy.)
The second is what I mean: the programs continue to run, but
there was some problem. My friend thought that it was a problem
with VB. He called Mi$uck and was told that version was *no*
longer supported. He was on his own.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
jmfb...@aol.com
Charles Richmond <rich...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> > I have a friend who wrote a
>> > cash register and inventory system using Visual Basic. Since
>> > Mi$uck *no* longer supports his version of VB, he has a system
>> > in the field and is on his own.
>>
>> When you say "support", do you mean the VB programs will no longer run
>> at all?
>> What OS and vers of VB do you have that isn't working? (I have VB 4
>> and presume that will work, though I'm actually more worried about my
>> much older Quick Basic Compiler.)
>>
>> Sometimes "support" means old programs WILL run, but there is no more
>> tech support for them if there is trouble. (On the mainframe, we have
>> ancient stuff supposedly "not supported" for years, but it runs fine as
>> long as you don't get fancy.)
>
>The second is what I mean: the programs continue to run, but
>there was some problem. My friend thought that it was a problem
>with VB. He called Mi$uck and was told that version was *no*
>longer supported. He was on his own.
>
would have made a friendly customer for life.
/BAH
toby
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> >>>>> "SOS" == Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>
> SOS> On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
> SOS> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
> >> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when
> >> Windows 95 becomes on topic.
>
> SOS> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
>
> Well, yes; but what new nifty features will that BSD have?
ZFS for a start :)
toby
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>
> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
> wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
> them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
As others mentioned, http://www.freedos.org/ or http://www.dosemu.org/
may help. Of course, you can always avoid Vista - the safest, simplest
and cheapest option.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [public replies please}
CBFalconer
The 'friend' has only himself to blame, for using a proprietary
system without proper standards in the first place. Maybe he has
learned a lesson.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> > >>>>> "SOS" == Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
> >
> > SOS> On 04 Dec 2006 15:29:12 -0500
> > SOS> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Gotta wonder what we'll be dealing with on our desktops when
> > >> Windows 95 becomes on topic.
> >
> > SOS> I strongly suspect I'll still be using a BSD :)
> >
> > Well, yes; but what new nifty features will that BSD have?
>
> ZFS for a start :)
Hmm ZFS, seamless clustering - looks like the design goals for the
one this post is coming from :)
jmfb...@aol.com
software. You are forgetting what a mess the biz was in before
Unix distribution did not require 100 lawyers and tons of money.
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> During that timeframe, nobody had a choice but to use
BAH> unsourced software. You are forgetting what a mess the biz
BAH> was in before Unix distribution did not require 100 lawyers
BAH> and tons of money.
My impression is that this is another of the things that has died
horribly in the computer business.
In olden days, you chose a vendor, and then developed a working
relationship with that vendor. The lack of source code was not a real
problem, because when you had a problem, you called up your contact at
the vendor, and schedules were arranged and the problem was fixed.
This does not seem to be the working model any more; the vendor gives
you what the vendor gives you, and after that you're on your own.
There are exceptions, mostly holdovers from the olden days.
In those olden days, you could get away without having source code
because you had that close working relationship. In the newer days,
you can't, at least not as easily, because if you can't fix the
problem yourself, you can't expect the vendor to fix it.
Thoughts?
CBFalconer
He always had the resource of a reasonable language, such as C,
Pascal, Ada. And VB is relatively recent compared to those after
standardization. C and Ada especially have the capability of
interfacing to arbitrary system dependent modules. He is paying
the penalty for using M$ software, and has no sympathy from me.
Robert
"Michael Black" <et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:el1u6h$3ch$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> (hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com) writes:
> > I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> > might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
> >
> > Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> > in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
> > wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
> > them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
> >
> >
> > [public replies please}
> >
> > P.S. Which is the best newsgroup for these sort of questions?
> >
>
> This is about old computers. Some of us have never run Windows,
> so why would we know about what seems to be some new version of it
> that is barely out of the gate?
>
> YOur problem isn't your question, your problem is that you don't
> have a clue where to ask.
>
> Michael
>
No reason to be rude to this guy. Why not give him a hint on where to
search?
Robert
>
toby
Robert wrote:
> "Michael Black" <et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:el1u6h$3ch$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> > (hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com) writes:
> > > I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> > > might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
> > >
> > > Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> > > P.S. Which is the best newsgroup for these sort of questions?
> > >
> > Anywhere but here.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> No reason to be rude to this guy. Why not give him a hint on where to
> search?
Well, this is not only Usenet, but a.f.c, and Windows is severely OT,
not to mention plain offensive.
But in the interests of harmony may I refer the OT to:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.windows
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.vb.dos
>
> Robert
> >
Morten Reistad
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> During that timeframe, nobody had a choice but to use
> BAH> unsourced software. You are forgetting what a mess the biz
> BAH> was in before Unix distribution did not require 100 lawyers
> BAH> and tons of money.
>
>My impression is that this is another of the things that has died
>horribly in the computer business.
>
>In olden days, you chose a vendor, and then developed a working
>relationship with that vendor. The lack of source code was not a real
>problem, because when you had a problem, you called up your contact at
>the vendor, and schedules were arranged and the problem was fixed.
You forget the part about paying the vendor a fee worthy
of Al Capone each year for the privilige; and a markup on
equipment that would have made him envious.
>This does not seem to be the working model any more; the vendor gives
>you what the vendor gives you, and after that you're on your own.
>There are exceptions, mostly holdovers from the olden days.
>
>In those olden days, you could get away without having source code
>because you had that close working relationship. In the newer days,
>you can't, at least not as easily, because if you can't fix the
>problem yourself, you can't expect the vendor to fix it.
>Thoughts?
The even bigger problem with the system of old was that
the tail was wagging the dog; if was the vendor that set all
the strategic directions in IT, not the customer.
Microsoft is trying; but they only partially have this clout.
Remember Ken Olsen, "Unix is snake oil" ? This was one
of these "direction setting" statements. We decide what
is good for you.
It was this screwing-over that gave us Microsoft and Open Source.
Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
No, the olden days was not so rosy. As long as your employer
kept to the fold, perhaps it was good to be inside the umbrella
of the IBM, DEC or AT&T customer base.
-- mrr
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
> and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
toby
CBFalconer wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
> > and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>
> No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
> soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
And that, of course, is exactly what Windows Genuine Disadvantage is
there for.
-
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&entry=3337425127
- http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/7/24/8477/16185
"Another way to look at it is that Microsoft has now moved to a
software subscription service for the majority of users. We are no
longer buying copies of software with a no-pirate license. We are
paying a fee for a planned-obsoleting piece of software which, after a
point in time, it will be illegal to use."
[http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/570005471831/p/2]
Expect a million stories like this:
"A few days ago Windows XP on my primary work computer decided that it
wasn't a legal copy. Strange since the copy running on there was
pre-installed at the time that the machine was built by Alienware."
[http://www.americanmcgee.com/wordpress/?p=171]
Run a business on that junk? You must be joking.
Frank McCoy
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
>> and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>
>No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
>soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it, no matter what the
license *says*. However, they *can* (and probably will) "Stop
Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
a year.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
>> and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>
>No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
>soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
Sounds like a very good reason to never use XP or anything later. :-)
--
ArarghMail612 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
toby
Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.folklore.computers CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Morten Reistad wrote:
> >>
> >... snip ...
> >>
> >> Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
> >> and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
> >
> >No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
> >soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
>
> Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
> doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it,
How I long for the day when Microsoft's whims make no difference to the
government.
> no matter what the
> license *says*. However, they *can* (and probably will) "Stop
> Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
> becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
>
> I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
> had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
> a year.
This is already happening (see above).
Peter Flass
> Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
> doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it, no matter what the
> license *says*. However, they *can* (and probably will) "Stop
> Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
> becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
>
Since most winblows comes preloaded (who would buy it otherwise?)
Mic$hit can force people to "upgrade" just by not selling anything but
Vista. Computer manufacturers, of course, love this, since they have to
sell bigger systems to run it on. Then Billy (or Stevie) puts
incompatibilities in the new versions of office, to force everyone else
to upgrade to remain compatible. Everybody wins but the customer.
jmfb...@aol.com
>
> BAH> During that timeframe, nobody had a choice but to use
> BAH> unsourced software. You are forgetting what a mess the biz
> BAH> was in before Unix distribution did not require 100 lawyers
> BAH> and tons of money.
>
>My impression is that this is another of the things that has died
>horribly in the computer business.
>
>In olden days, you chose a vendor, and then developed a working
>relationship with that vendor. The lack of source code was not a real
>problem, because when you had a problem, you called up your contact at
>the vendor, and schedules were arranged and the problem was fixed.
Sure. The vendors were able to do that because they had the
sources to debug, study, and fix stuff. Now they're merely
go-inbetweens without any room to wiggle.
>
>This does not seem to be the working model any more; the vendor gives
>you what the vendor gives you, and after that you're on your own.
I think the biz evolved into this because vendors could NOT afford
to be liable for stuff they had no control over. Not having
sources is directly proportional to one's range of control.
>There are exceptions, mostly holdovers from the olden days.
>
>In those olden days, you could get away without having source code
>because you had that close working relationship.
Wrong. Your _vendor_ had the source code. Nowadays, in a
PC environment, he cannot...go read the EULAs. They can
be interpreted to mean that none of the vendor's work is his.
> In the newer days,
>you can't, at least not as easily, because if you can't fix the
>problem yourself, you can't expect the vendor to fix it.
>
>Thoughts?
It all comes down to teh bottom line of control of sources.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Sigh! Whose C? Whose Pascal? Whose Ada?
He had the same potential problem with all of them.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
At that time, it was snake oil. [Sorry, Dennis.]
Did you ever try to get an agreement from ATT that allowed you to
do major monitor development?
>
>It was this screwing-over that gave us Microsoft and Open Source.
>
>Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
>and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>
>No, the olden days was not so rosy.
I never meant to imply that they were rosy. They were a mess.
> As long as your employer
>kept to the fold, perhaps it was good to be inside the umbrella
>of the IBM, DEC or AT&T customer base.
Now, instead of hiring experts who have thousands of manyears
experience at their fingertips, you, as a consumer, get to
become your own expert.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>
>>... snip ...
>>>
>>> Microsoft simply beacuse they are divorced from the hardware,
>>> and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>>
>>No you can't. Read the EULA to XP. They can disable everything as
>>soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
>
>Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
>doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it, no matter what the
>license *says*.
Now rexamine your assumptions. That same Gubmint settled the
monopoly lawsuit by allowing Micshit to install their software
in all schools so that no kid ever gets a chance to see how
the computing world should really work.
>However, they *can* (and probably will) "Stop
>Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
>becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
They should stop supporting old stuff. Otherwise they end up
like Wang. But there is a nice customer-friendly way to stop
support and then there is the guarantee-all-customers-get-screwed
way to stop support. It is Micshit's original folklore that
requires the latter to always be done.
>
>I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
>had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
>a year.
How are those customers going to know what happened? One day the
system doesn't work, so they go to their local retail and
buy a new one.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"Robert" <sab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Black" <et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:el1u6h$3ch$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> (hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com) writes:
>No reason to be rude to this guy. Why not give him a hint on where to
>search?
Because Hancock does know better.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>In article <6k8kn2h92as6r3ah8...@4ax.com>, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
>> had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
>> a year.
>
>that require activation, is to stop offering the activation service for
>"obsolete" software. (The average life expectancy of Windows on a home
>computer seems to be about 4 to 6 months between reloads. Maybe a bit
>longer for businesses, but "wipe and reload" seems to be almost normal
>mainenance on those systems.)
Do you know how scarey this is? Wipe and reload has to include
data accumulated, too. THINK about that.
/BAH
Frank McCoy
Yeah. They did that with Win-98 and XP; so why not?
;-{
krw
jmfb...@aol.com says...
Data can be backed up and restored. The real problem with wipe and
reload is applications. It takes *forever* to reinstall every
driver and application, if one has all the install media.
--
Keith
toby
> Frank McCoy wrote:
> > Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
> > doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it, no matter what the
> > license *says*. However, they *can* (and probably will) "Stop
> > Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
> > becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
> >
>
> Since most winblows comes preloaded (who would buy it otherwise?)
You hit the nail on the head there. We might as well call it the
"Government issue" operating system, since they tolerate - moreso,
subsidise and encourage - the monopoly and its perpetuation. In this
way fin-de-siècle American capitalism emulates one of the complaints
about the Soviet: imposition of mediocrity (and its corollary,
suppression of choice).
CBFalconer
No he didn't. All those languages had and have well defined ISO
standards. Code written to them will port to any compliant system.
Roland Hutchinson
> They should stop supporting old stuff. Otherwise they end up
> like Wang. But there is a nice customer-friendly way to stop
> support and then there is the guarantee-all-customers-get-screwed
> way to stop support. It is Micshit's original folklore that
> requires the latter to always be done.
Speaking for myself, I look forward to the day that Microsoft ends up like
Wang.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Frank McCoy
>In article <6k8kn2h92as6r3ah8...@4ax.com>, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
>> had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
>> a year.
>
>All they really have to do, at least in the case of non-corporate editions
>that require activation, is to stop offering the activation service for
>"obsolete" software. (The average life expectancy of Windows on a home
>computer seems to be about 4 to 6 months between reloads. Maybe a bit
>longer for businesses, but "wipe and reload" seems to be almost normal
>mainenance on those systems.)
Wouldn't work.
There would still be *new* copies of Micr$hit software running around
that people would buy and expect to (at the very least) run.
However, as I say, not *supporting* the old software with updates would
soon force most people to downgrade to the newer and worser system. (I
know ... I had to do that with my own main system ... though the other
two are still running Win-98SE and [ICK!] Win-Me.) After a while you're
*forced* to do so, if you want to remain compatible with the rest of the
world. ;-{
(I *really* should pull that Me system on my laptop and replace it with
Win-98SE ... I *do* have an extra copy. Me has to be the absolute
*worst* OS ever put out by Micro$shit. I'm just worried that the old
laptop, being "built for Wind-holes-ME" might have a problem with the
upgrade. Still: It couldn't possibly be *worse* than the present crap,
could it? Another two weeks getting everything stable again ...
<Sigh.>)
Frank McCoy
That's why I always backup my entire system to another hard-drive, and
then disconnect *that* drive from the system, before installing a new
OS.
Frank McCoy
About two weeks on the average to get things stable again for me.
And *I* always keep an "installs" directory on a separate external
hard-drive, where I save all copies of programs loaded off the net.
I must have seven or eight complete install copies of Netscape, for
example, going all the way back to 4.3.
It's murder for a while though, getting all the various CDs containing
drivers for things like printers and such. Never could get my old
Scan-Ace parallel-port scanner to work under Win-XP though. ;-{
A shame; because the software was *much* better for that than either of
the other two scanners I have.
Hmmm ... Thinking about it: The wife's computer still has Win98SE on it
... I should move that scanner downstairs and put in on hers. Now why
didn't I think of that before? Don't have any plans of putting XP on
*that* thing, so ....
Frank McCoy
Like I said: It worked for them before; so they'll do it again.
;-{
>>
>>I think if Micro$hit even tried disabling remotely software that people
>>had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
>>a year.
>
>How are those customers going to know what happened? One day the
>system doesn't work, so they go to their local retail and
>buy a new one.
>
When that happens and several million people raise a howl, they'll know.
Frank McCoy
Um ... I remember all too well "becoming my own expert" when software
announce years earlier never materialized. "Vaporware" was a much more
prevalent thing back then than it is now.
I had talked the company I worked for into buying the computer ... and
when the announced software wasn't ready while the computer was ...
Guess who got the job of writing software for the thing from the
ground-up; twiddling a cassette-loader into the front-panel switches,
writing a monitor/debugger program, Assembler, Editor, and finally a
(very crude) Disk Operating System, so they could edit, save, store,
access, and print their customer data files?
That's how I got into the computer software business about 40 years ago.
Andrew Swallow
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> They should stop supporting old stuff. Otherwise they end up
>> like Wang. But there is a nice customer-friendly way to stop
>> support and then there is the guarantee-all-customers-get-screwed
>> way to stop support. It is Micshit's original folklore that
>> requires the latter to always be done.
>
> Speaking for myself, I look forward to the day that Microsoft ends up like
> Wang.
>
word processor, email, spread sheet etc. in PROM. Make it backwards
compatible with Microsoft files and the normal ones used on the
internet. Keep it half the price of a PC. Hide it from Bill Gates.
Andrew Swallow
jmfb...@aol.com
Yes, he did. You are talking about an out-of-date system
whose software base was no longer supported anywhere.
> All those languages had and have well defined ISO
>standards. Code written to them will port to any compliant system.
They wreen't backwards compatible. They can't be.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
<GRIN> You got to be the Volunteer.
> got the job of writing software for the thing from the
>ground-up; twiddling a cassette-loader into the front-panel switches,
>writing a monitor/debugger program, Assembler, Editor, and finally a
>(very crude) Disk Operating System, so they could edit, save, store,
>access, and print their customer data files?
>
>That's how I got into the computer software business about 40 years ago.
How long did it take you produce a suite that could be used while
you were doing the next step?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> They should stop supporting old stuff. Otherwise they end up
>> like Wang. But there is a nice customer-friendly way to stop
>> support and then there is the guarantee-all-customers-get-screwed
>> way to stop support. It is Micshit's original folklore that
>> requires the latter to always be done.
>
>Speaking for myself, I look forward to the day that Microsoft ends up like
>Wang.
It won't. The messes will be bigger. Wang fixed the bugs they
could in the versions that had them. That was Wang's problem..
they ended up having to support every software level they ever
put out, and that had to include each edit. This eventually
morphed into supporting each customer as if their system software
were unique. You cannot do production development with this
kind of infrastructure.
/BAH
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
We were talking about _home_ computers where the sys administrator
are people like my mother. Now think what can happen when everybody
is forced to go to banking on-line.
Now, THINK about that.
/BAH
>
jmfb...@aol.com
This is ridiculous. A -10 installation would have never put up
with that.
>
>It's murder for a while though, getting all the various CDs containing
>drivers for things like printers and such. Never could get my old
>Scan-Ace parallel-port scanner to work under Win-XP though. ;-{
>A shame; because the software was *much* better for that than either of
>the other two scanners I have.
>
>Hmmm ... Thinking about it: The wife's computer still has Win98SE on it
>.... I should move that scanner downstairs and put in on hers. Now why
>didn't I think of that before? Don't have any plans of putting XP on
>*that* thing, so ....
>
ROTFL. Don't you need access privs?
/BAH
krw
Again, data is easy. Teach your mother to copy her data files to a
DVD. OTOH, system administration is a PITA, on purpose. With OS/2
one could simply drag and drop installed applications to a backup
device (or keep them on another drive), reinstall the OS, and drag
the apps back from the backup device. M$ makes one reinstall each
app from scratch.
>
> Now, THINK about that.
I have. Data is still easy and doesn't suffer bit-rot like
WinWhatever. It doesn't even have to be kept on the OS drive. A
*little* bit of planning can make it pretty hard to lose it all.
There is nothing that can be done with the OS.
--
Keith
Frank McCoy
It comes in handy if a newer installation doesn't work.
I can always remove the later version and go back to the old one, even
if the company (for example: Netscape) no longer has the old version on
its website. This is *really* handy for video drivers that sometimes so
fuck-up a system with a "later/newer" version that things no longer run.
Supposedly Win-XP allows you to "roll back" an installation ... But I
trust that about as far as I can throw a brick chimney by its smoke.
Oftentimes the "roll-back" I want is just *before* the last-saved
blockpoint.
>>
>>It's murder for a while though, getting all the various CDs containing
>>drivers for things like printers and such. Never could get my old
>>Scan-Ace parallel-port scanner to work under Win-XP though. ;-{
>>A shame; because the software was *much* better for that than either of
>>the other two scanners I have.
>>
>>Hmmm ... Thinking about it: The wife's computer still has Win98SE on it
>>.... I should move that scanner downstairs and put in on hers. Now why
>>didn't I think of that before? Don't have any plans of putting XP on
>>*that* thing, so ....
>>
>ROTFL. Don't you need access privs?
>
Being the "System Administrator" means I have privileges.
;-}
Frank McCoy
About three months to get the system running well enough for people to
enter data. About six before everything was running *with* the data.
Looking back at it: GOD was that crude!
(But it worked.)
jmfb...@aol.com
[emoticon of auld fart looks at 486 running Windows 3.0, DOS 6.0 on
a 14400 modem] Uh-huh. ;-)
> OTOH, system administration is a PITA, on purpose. With OS/2
>one could simply drag and drop installed applications to a backup
>device (or keep them on another drive), reinstall the OS, and drag
>the apps back from the backup device. M$ makes one reinstall each
>app from scratch.
Noone is getting taught about backups, let alone what an app
or an OS is. All they see is a screen with a pointy thing.
They don't even know about files.
>>
>> Now, THINK about that.
>
>I have. Data is still easy and doesn't suffer bit-rot like
>WinWhatever. It doesn't even have to be kept on the OS drive. A
>*little* bit of planning can make it pretty hard to lose it all.
>There is nothing that can be done with the OS.
Are you able to think like a luser?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Goodfuckinggrief!!! You were too dumb to know you pulled a miracle.
>
>Looking back at it: GOD was that crude!
>(But it worked.)
Crude?! For the first one and functional in three months?
Crude would be the last adjective I would use.
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
t> You hit the nail on the head there. We might as well call it
t> the "Government issue" operating system, since they tolerate -
t> moreso, subsidise and encourage - the monopoly and its
t> perpetuation.
For three years I was completely Microsoft-free. That only ended
because work decided to buy me a copy of Microsoft Office for Mac,
because my boss was terrified that I wouldn't be able to read
Important Documents. Other than that, I'm still completely
Microsoft-free, and I don't use Office much at all.
There are *plenty* of choices available. If people stick with
Microsoft, it is because of their own fear or ignorance.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Charlton Wilbur
>> How are those customers going to know what happened? One day
>> the system doesn't work, so they go to their local retail and
>> buy a new one.
FMcC> When that happens and several million people raise a howl,
FMcC> they'll know.
I think you misunderestimate Microsoft. This happens every day --
computers stop working because of flaky software -- and people go out
and buy new computers. That's where I got my current server -- it
"didn't work," so the owner donated it to me and bought a new one.
If this happens because Microsoft intentionally disabled the software
instead of because of an accumulation of viruses, spyware, and similar
cruft, who will notice?
Christopher C. Stacy
> In alt.folklore.computers krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>In article <eleiri$8qk...@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>>
>>reload is applications. It takes *forever* to reinstall every
>>driver and application, if one has all the install media.
>
> About two weeks on the average to get things stable again for me.
> And *I* always keep an "installs" directory on a separate external
> hard-drive, where I save all copies of programs loaded off the net.
> I must have seven or eight complete install copies of Netscape, for
> example, going all the way back to 4.3.
This is exactly what I did, back when I was running Windows.
And, yes, 80 hours is just how long it always took to recover.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> In alt.folklore.computers CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>... snip ...
>>
>>>and you can keep running their products for as long as you like.
>>
>>soon as they think you should upgrade and pay them some more.
>
>
> Well, maybe their License Agreement *says* they can ... But I somehow
> doubt the Gubmint would let them get away with it, no matter what the
> Supporting Obsolete Software" (like they did with Win-98) whenever it
> becomes convenient for them to sell new stuff.
>
> had ... It would leave them bankrupt and under Government control inside
> a year.
>
which contravenes its EULA, there will be an immediate spread of
software patches to bypass their built in access points into the system.
Of course the development of these patches will mean wholesale
disassembly of the OS code, the illegality of which will just not
be persecuted.
I have just read that MS has just relaxed their EULA restriction on
transfer of a purchased VISTA OS license to an upgraded machine.
--
Rostyk
Frank McCoy
It's that SOB: REGISTRY, that everybody *thinks* they have to use!
They don't; but everybody thinks they have to muck with the damned
thing. ;-{
Damnedest idiotic crap M$hit ever came up with.
>>
>> Now, THINK about that.
>
>I have. Data is still easy and doesn't suffer bit-rot like
>WinWhatever. It doesn't even have to be kept on the OS drive. A
>*little* bit of planning can make it pretty hard to lose it all.
>There is nothing that can be done with the OS.
--
Frank McCoy
wrote:
Millions of people (like me, for instance) who *do* know which side of a
DVD goes up.
toby
Then you're smart enough to avoid them in the first place. Q.E.D.
Peter Flass
Took me quite a while with my last OS/2 install, though I couldn't say
how long, since I spread it out with long delays here and there.
I thought I had my whole system backed up with ADSM. The first problem
was I had to dig up a bunch of drivers for new hardware. Once I had a
runnung system I found out we were no longer running ADSM, so I had to
have it brought up on second-level VM in order to recover my data.
Finally I found it easier to just download and install new versions of
my applications, and just use the ASDSM back-ups for the data.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> I don't know where to post this question, but I hoped this newsgroup
> might be helpful. (I searched the MS website with no luck).
>
> Would anyone know accurately whether the C:> prompt will be supported
> in MS Vista? I run a number of old MS-DOS programs, including many I
> wrote and compiled from QuickBasic 4.5 and a few from PB 7.0. None of
> them do anything fancy with interupts or I/O.
I'm pretty sure it will still have a command prompt.
However, I do remember that the 64-bit edition of Windows XP
Professional did *not* support 16-bit Windows programs.
Windows Vista is going to include 32-bit and 64-bit versions on the
same disk. Is it going to have, in the 64-bit version the same
limitation?
If so, it won't be possible to run Castle of the Winds under the
current version of Windows any longer! I might as well use a Mac, or
Linux, then!
John Savard
Charles Richmond
to support an old version of VB. But my friend is a bit of a
shifty character himself, so I am *not* sure exactly what he
learned. He was a cow-orker of mine at a PPoE, and I have *not*
seen him in quite a few years.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
>
> >>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> During that timeframe, nobody had a choice but to use
> BAH> unsourced software. You are forgetting what a mess the biz
> BAH> was in before Unix distribution did not require 100 lawyers
> BAH> and tons of money.
>
> My impression is that this is another of the things that has died
> horribly in the computer business.
>
> In olden days, you chose a vendor, and then developed a working
> relationship with that vendor. The lack of source code was not a real
> problem, because when you had a problem, you called up your contact at
> the vendor, and schedules were arranged and the problem was fixed.
>
> you what the vendor gives you, and after that you're on your own.
> There are exceptions, mostly holdovers from the olden days.
>
> In those olden days, you could get away without having source code
> because you had that close working relationship. In the newer days,
> you can't, at least not as easily, because if you can't fix the
> problem yourself, you can't expect the vendor to fix it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
for the oil industry. The company I worked for was building a system
for a major oil company. I followed the information in the manual and
wrote the software that interfaced this device. The program failed
to work.
I called the vendor of this device and got to talk with the software
developer for the device. In effect they said: "It does *not* work
like it says in the manual. These are the problems and this is the
way to program around it." I penciled up my copy of the manual and
got the interface program working.
This vendor was *highly* motivated to help me because it meant that
they would sell a few dozen of the devices *if* my program worked
with the major oil company's system. With the vertical market for
their device, they *needed* those sales.
Frank McCoy
A case of, "Had to do it."
A year later, I left the company.
It was quite a feather in my cap to claim on my resume that I had
written my own:
Monitor/debugger
Editor
Assembler
Cross-Assembler (8080 to 6800)
I did that in one night, believe it or not.
Interpreter
Compiler
Operating System
And about a dozen other utilities.
Why?
Because they weren't available from the manufacturer.
Did all that in my *spare* time, *after work*, while I did my main job
as R&D engineer during the daytime.
>>
>>Looking back at it: GOD was that crude!
>>(But it worked.)
>
>Crude?! For the first one and functional in three months?
>
Well ... Yes, crude.
I knew absolutely *nothing* about Operating System design.
I look back on that and shudder.
Like VTL-1 (Before VTL-2) and the "Story of the Dancing Bear".
The wonder of the Dancing Bear wasn't how gracefully the bear danced,
nor how well it kept time to the music; but merely that it danced at
all.
So it was with that "Operating System":
It accessed the floppy-disk drives.
It saved, backed-up, and restored files, along with running a printer,
two terminals, and (sometimes) a teletype.
Up to eight files could be stored on a floppy.
(The Editor was strictly memory-resident. So, to save a "file" it saved
ALL of memory, including the Editor itself.)
The system was designed to be interrupt-driven and time-sharing; with up
to eight terminals accessing the system at one time. The most I ever
ran was two though.
>Crude would be the last adjective I would use.
>
>/BAH
Actually, I was *much* prouder of VTL-2:
A whole language in 768 *bytes* of ROM.
That included Editor, Interpreter, and Immediate-Mode.
Think of this:
It took us about two months of cut-and-try again to produce that
language; crunching time after time to get just another byte or two to
add yet another feature. Probably the most incredibly packed piece of
code that ever was or ever will be written. (It was in the development
of VTL-2 on the Altair 680B, that I wrote that cross-assembler in one
night that ran on the big Altair 8800 at work ... I just *yanked* the
op-codes for 8080/Z-80 and stuck in 6800 codes.) We sold VTL-2 for over
two years, about 2500 copies or more, until memory became cheap and MITS
came out with their Disk-BASIC at about the same time CP/M came big.
From start-to-last, we never got a single bug-report from ANY customer!
Can you think of ANY other commercial program that can boast anything
even close?
About the only other program even close, was a Disk-Editor/Copier for 8"
floppies I wrote for CDC (Later Imprimis and finally Seagate) that ran
on their PTS (Programmable Test-Station) that I wrote in about three
weeks, produced *full* documentation, from Design-Dequirements, Internal
and External Design Specifications through Operating Manual and even
Maintenance-Document, Released version A-0 ... And again, never got one
bug report; even though at that time I was offering a dollar-reward to
anybody in the company who was first to report a bug on *any* of my
software. (I gave out about $30 in about 20 years there; mostly for the
main "Universal Test" software that was under constant flux all the time
as new drives with new capabilities came out. It was also the most used
software.) About 15 years later the PTS was finally retired; and the
Disk-Editor/Copier was STILL at version A-0, without one user complaint.
(Wish I could say that about any other software I wrote.)
Frank McCoy
Try DOSbox.
Runs most all of those old 486 and earlier programs.
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net
99% of my old AT programs came to life with the emulator.
Including even my old "Spacewar" game that ran on a Hercules card.