"Tech Help!" programming reference on-line

[Mateusz Viste]

Hello all,

Last night I stumbled upon an amazingly complete database of information
about DOS programming:

http://www.techhelpmanual.com/

It is apparently a html conversion of the DOS-based "Tech Help! 6.0"
reference tool from 1994. I have to warn that although the URL looks
legit, I have no idea whether or not this website is a copyright
violation of any kind. On a side note, it's worth pointing out that the
Tech Help author itself is also providing a html version of his
outstanding tool (his html export is somewhat limited though, presumably
because of hosting space constraints):
http://webpages.charter.net/danrollins/techhelp/

I'm probably very late at the party, but perhaps there are others like me
who missed out on this marvel in the past, and who would still find this
enjoyable today. I think it's an excellent companion to the venerable
RBIL.

Mateusz
--
Real Programmers don't write specs. Users should be grateful for whatever
they get: they are lucky to get any programs at all.

[Trifle Menot]

On 17 Jan 2017 09:04:05 GMT, Mateusz Viste

<mateus...@localhost.localhost> wrote:

>Last night I stumbled upon an amazingly complete database of information
>about DOS programming:

>http://www.techhelpmanual.com/

>It is apparently a html conversion of the DOS-based "Tech Help! 6.0"
>reference tool from 1994. I have to warn that although the URL looks
>legit, I have no idea whether or not this website is a copyright
>violation of any kind. On a side note, it's worth pointing out that the
>Tech Help author itself is also providing a html version of his
>outstanding tool (his html export is somewhat limited though, presumably
>because of hosting space constraints):
>http://webpages.charter.net/danrollins/techhelp/

techhelpmanual.com is registered to George P in Athens Greece. The Tech
Help author is Dan Rollins of Glendale, CA. So yeah, it's a copyright
violation.

It has the same material as common reference books. If you can't afford
books, and don't care about such things as copyright, maybe it helps.

[Mateusz Viste]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +0000, Trifle Menot wrote:
> techhelpmanual.com is registered to George P in Athens Greece. The Tech
> Help author is Dan Rollins of Glendale, CA. So yeah, it's a copyright
> violation.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Who registers what domain name is
totally irrelevant to the matter.

> It has the same material as common reference books. If you can't afford
> books, and don't care about such things as copyright, maybe it helps.

I agree that nothing beats books. I'm most impressed by their CTRL+F
capabilities, too.

Mateusz

[Trifle Menot]

On 17 Jan 2017 15:07:15 GMT, Mateusz Viste

<mateus...@localhost.localhost> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +0000, Trifle Menot wrote:
>> techhelpmanual.com is registered to George P in Athens Greece. The Tech
>> Help author is Dan Rollins of Glendale, CA. So yeah, it's a copyright
>> violation.

>Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Who registers what domain name is
>totally irrelevant to the matter.

Never apply for a job as an investigator. Naivety is a disqualifier.
It's not good for programmers either.

>I agree that nothing beats books. I'm most impressed by their CTRL+F
>capabilities, too.

When the power goes down you can't find anything with CTRL+F.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> The Tech Help author is Dan Rollins of Glendale, CA.

Thats info thats in plain view on the sites "How to use TECH Help!" page.

> So yeah, it's a copyright violation.

Taking the fact that its an American company, any rights owners should, with
the provided information, not have any problem with finding them, don't you
think ? Something Dan Rollins is probably _very_ aware of.

If you than consider that that site seems to be over 30 _Years_ old (if I
may believe the copyright on the bottom of that page) and still in the air
should also tell you something.

Furthermore, Greece is not some gung-ho country where you can do whatever
you please as long as you pay off the local authorities.

So no, I don't think what they have put up there is illegaly done so.

Again, engage your brain before you open your mouth. Look further than your
nose is long. Currently all you do is spreading FUD.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
Trifle Menot <trifl...@protocol.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws
u37s7ctf1im1indon...@4ax.com...

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> Never apply for a job as an investigator. Naivety is a disqualifier.

Another disqualifier is to go for the first thing that matches your
preconceptions, while (forecfully!) ignoring everything else.

In other words, you're disqualified yourself too.

> It's not good for programmers either.

Neither is succumbing to "confirmation bias". Those kind of people will
make the most complex programs (taking lots of time and thus money), when a
simpler solution could be available - if he would only have looked a bit
further ...

Do you know the story about the millions the Americans spend to create a
ballpoint-pen that would work in space ? The Russians when a _lot_
smarter: They used a pencil :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
Trifle Menot <trifl...@protocol.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws

jhes7clvf3u5p6nch...@4ax.com...

[Ant]

"R.Wieser" wrote:
> Do you know the story about the millions the Americans spend to create a
> ballpoint-pen that would work in space ? The Russians when a _lot_
> smarter: They used a pencil :-)

They'd hardly be smart to use a pencil. Imagine all the graphite
particles getting into the electronics - not a good idea. More likely
the Russians used an ordinary ballpoint since no special ballpoints
are required in space!

[Rod Pemberton]

On 17 Jan 2017 09:04:05 GMT

Mateusz Viste <mateus...@localhost.localhost> wrote:

> I'm probably very late at the party, but perhaps there are others
> like me who missed out on this marvel in the past, and who would
> still find this enjoyable today. I think it's an excellent companion
> to the venerable RBIL.

Hey Mateusz,

I've posted a bunch of links to DOS, BIOS, and IBM hardware reference
manuals over the years. Here are some of them. All confirmed good
links. I hope you spend a few minutes perusing them.


PC DOS 7 Technical reference
http://web.archive.org/web/20060515000000*/http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/gg244459.pdf

DR-DOS System and Programmers Guide
http://www.drdos.net/documentation/sysprog/httoc.htm

IBM DOS Version 4.00 Technical Reference
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/pc/dos/15F0256_DOS_4.0_Technical_Reference_Jul88.pdf

Phoenix "System BIOS for IBM PC/XT/AT Computers"
https://archive.org/details/SystemBiosForIbmPcxtAtComputersCompatibles


PC-GPE - "PC Game Programmer's Encyclopedia"
http://bespin.org/~qz/pc-gpe/

David Jurgens' HelpPC Reference Library (PC hardware, assembly)
http://stanislavs.org/helppc/

The PC Guide (PC hardware)
http://www.pcguide.com/

Wotsit file format archive (slow mirror)
http://devel.archefire.org/mirrors/www.wotsit.org/


Dave Williams Programmer's Technical Reference for DOS
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/docs/dosref33.zip

Finn Thoegersen VGADOC package of VGA programming info
http://cd.textfiles.com/simtel/stmsdos9709/disk1/DISC1/VGA/VGADOC4B.ZIP


"DOS ain't dead" forum
http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum.php


Some links to collections of other reference manual for DOS, BIOS, and
the original IBM technical reference manual for PC/XT/AT/PS2 etc:

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/pc/dos/
http://www.retroarchive.org/dos/docs/
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/pc/ps2/
http://www.mcamafia.de/pdf/pdfref.htm


Ralf Brown's Interrupt List (RBIL)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/files.html
http://www.ctyme.com/intr/int.htm
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/

The latter two links are html versions, but only include the main
interrupt files. They don't include many other files that are
available in the original file set, such as files for cpu bugs, memory
maps, and port values. The first link is for the original files.


I've also posted links to other things like old DOS file collections
such as Simtel, Garbo, Umich, Funet, Hobbes, Hornet, etc, which I can
post again or track down new mirrors, if wanted. Or, you can search
Google Groups archives of Usenet for my name and "http" and Simtel etc.


Rod Pemberton

[Mateusz Viste]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:38:34 +0000, Ant wrote:
> They'd hardly be smart to use a pencil.

Actually they apparently did (and so did Americans).

> More likely the Russians used an ordinary ballpoint since no special
> ballpoints are required in space!

I've never been there, so can't say for sure, but Wikipedia disagrees
with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_in_space

The "Americans spent millions while Soviets used a pencil" story, as
cheerful as it is, isn't true either.

Mateusz

[Mateusz Viste]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:31:34 -0500, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> I've posted a bunch of links to DOS, BIOS, and IBM hardware reference
> manuals over the years. Here are some of them. All confirmed good
> links. I hope you spend a few minutes perusing them.

Thanks Rod! I did know most of these links, but those I didn't I will
study carefully, seems like potentially very interesting stuff.

cheers,
Mateusz

[R.Wieser]

Ant,

> They'd hardly be smart to use a pencil. Imagine all the graphite
> particles getting into the electronics - not a good idea.

Maybe the russians use a bit more sturdy stuff that their american
counterparts ? Would not be the first time they did that either. :-)

> More likely the Russians used an ordinary ballpoint

Not likely. Ordinary ballpoints need gravity to work (try writing
upside-down for more than a minute or so ...)

> no special ballpoints are required in space!

See above.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:

Ant <n...@home.today> schreef in berichtnieuws o5mkfr$365$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[R.Wieser]

Mateusz,

> The "Americans spent millions while Soviets used a pencil"
> story, as cheerful as it is, isn't true either.

Really ? But its such a _good_ one ... :-)

But although the "russians are smarter than that" might not been (fully)
true, the story below seems to indicate that most of that joke is actually
correct.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/


Regards,
Rudy Wieser




Mateusz Viste <mateus...@localhost.localhost> schreef in berichtnieuws
587f1772$0$5430$426a...@news.free.fr...

[Ant]

"R.Wieser" wrote:
> Ant,

>> More likely the Russians used an ordinary ballpoint
>
> Not likely.

According to the wiki link posted, they have used them.

> Ordinary ballpoints need gravity to work

Well, they must have worked for a bit. Perhaps when they got tired of
shaking them they bought the Fisher space pen.

[R.Wieser]

Ant,

> Perhaps when they got tired of shaking them they
> bought the Fisher space pen.

:-D probably, yes.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser.

-- Origional message:
Ant <n...@home.today> schreef in berichtnieuws

o5nnlj$1je6$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Trifle Menot]

On 18 Jan 2017 07:21:22 GMT, Mateusz Viste

If you regulars can post this off topic chatter, don't complain about
mine.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:31:34 -0500, Rod Pemberton

<NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:

>I've also posted links to other things like old DOS file collections
>such as Simtel, Garbo, Umich, Funet, Hobbes, Hornet, etc, which I can
>post again or track down new mirrors

How do you track down mirrors? They are getting hard to find.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> If you regulars can post this off topic chatter, don't complain
> about mine.

There is my boy! Complaining about something _that never happened_ .

You think it did ? I dare you to quote it. Good luck, but I won't hold
my breath.

Also, there is _quite_ a difference between being off-topic and the
(thoughtless, and seemingly proud of that) junk you seem to prefer. The
first is acceptable (within reason), the latter not so much.

Especially not when you do your commenting in a rather negative way
(agressive, as if you know _much_ better than anyone here), and refuse to
clarify or support your stance/opinion when asked (but instead try to weazel
you way out of it).

Ofcourse, as you told me you would blacklist me you will probably not even
see this message. Not first-hand anyway. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



-- Origional message:
Trifle Menot <trifl...@protocol.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws

t72v7clvquh0e3ise...@4ax.com...

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:21:10 -0000, R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:

> Trifle,
>
>> If you regulars can post this off topic chatter, don't complain
>> about mine.
>
> There is my boy! Complaining about something _that never happened_ .
>
>

PDFTT


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Rod Pemberton]

Google (or Yahoo). I usually search for the type of mirror, e.g.,
"Simtel" or "Simtel mirror". Google will find both websites and ftp
archives. Then, you'll usually find some old mirrors or archives.
These will usually list the files they once carried, but they typically
won't have the files anymore. Then, I search Google again, but this
time for a specific file that should be carried by the specific mirror,
e.g., "VGADOC4B.ZIP". Google will find a bunch more sites. I then go
through those sites attempting to download the file. They either have
the file or they don't. If they have the searched for file, I try a
few more files. If they have those files as well and I can move
up/down directories or lists, I save the link in my browser. Over time
some of the links go bad, and you have to start over. Fortunately,
many of these sites were burned to CD-ROMs, so someone puts up another
mirror, given enough time. The key is to have a name of the specific
file you want. Sometimes you can find a specific file on other sites
which aren't mirrors. IIRC, Funet was real hard to find some years
ago. So, it might not be available anymore. Decus was another archive
I haven't seen in a long time. Sometimes I search my old Usenet posts
too or those of other people. The Wayback Machine archives various
Internet sites. So, if you have the original link, they may have the
website archived. Before Google (and Yahoo) starting using
automatic word correct and "fuzzy" searches a few years ago, they found
better results. You just had to put in more and more search terms
until they found what you wanted. Today, they seem to look at just the
first few search terms, ignore the remainder, convert your search terms
to their corrected search terms, then search ...


Rod Pemberton

[Trifle Menot]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:43:34 -0500, Rod Pemberton
<NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:

>> How do you track down mirrors? They are getting hard to find.

>Google (or Yahoo). I usually search for the type of mirror, e.g.,
>"Simtel" or "Simtel mirror". Google will find both websites and ftp
>archives. Then, you'll usually find some old mirrors or archives.
>These will usually list the files they once carried, but they typically
>won't have the files anymore. Then, I search Google again, but this
>time for a specific file that should be carried by the specific mirror,
>e.g., "VGADOC4B.ZIP".

Sometimes I can find old files using filewatcher:

http://www.filewatcher.com/

It finds your example file.