TSR

[Trifle Menot]

"TSRs ... consume valuable memory from the 640 Kbytes DOS allots for
user programs ... Many techniques exist for writing TSRs in high-level
languages, but they will always consume more memory than is necessary."

Al Williams, DOS 5: A Developer's Guide, p. 507.

Undocumented DOS and some other books have useful TSR material written
in C, but I see these as learning and prototyping tools. Once the ideas
and techniques are mastered, a real TSR should be rewritten in assembly
language.

[Wildman]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:21:53 +0000, Trifle Menot wrote:

> "TSRs ... consume valuable memory from the 640 Kbytes DOS allots for
> user programs ...

TSRs can be loaded into upper memory, if an expanded memory
manager is installed.

--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[Mateusz Viste]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:21:53 +0000, Trifle Menot wrote:

> Undocumented DOS and some other books have useful TSR material written
> in C, but I see these as learning and prototyping tools. Once the ideas
> and techniques are mastered, a real TSR should be rewritten in assembly
> language.

It all depends on the potential gain, and achieved bugfix/hour ratio for
maintenance. Surely a working C TSR that requires 10 or 20% more memory
is better than an assembly TSR that corrupts memory and requires hundreds
of hours of man power to debug.

Obviously there are ways to make (reasonably) small TSRs in C, Pascal and
possibly other higr-level dialects.

Mateusz

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

>" Many techniques exist for writing TSRs in high-level languages,
> but they will always consume more memory than is necessary."

The same can be said for _any_ executable written in a high(er)-level
language. Any reason you singled out TSRs here ?

And define "necessary". If the opposite of "more memory" is the only
thing you're looking at than you will be in for a world of hurt (see Mateusz
reply).

> Once the ideas and techniques are mastered, a real TSR should
> be rewritten in assembly language.

Again, the same can be said for _any_ program. So, why doesn't that
rewrite-to-Assembly happen with them ? Ever thought of that ?

And next time please post your _own_ insights into why think something
should be done in a particular way, otherwise your points-of-view (like
you've showed in your last few messages) are just that, without much worth
(if any).

... Or are you just out to provoke a discussion for the heck of it ? That
would be a trifle annoying you know. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
Trifle Menot <trifl...@protocol.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws
upsn7c9eo2vlp7sjl...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:36:41 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>>" Many techniques exist for writing TSRs in high-level languages,
>> but they will always consume more memory than is necessary."

>The same can be said for _any_ executable written in a high(er)-level
>language. Any reason you singled out TSRs here ?

I didn't. That was a quote from Williams.

>And next time please post your _own_ insights

I'll post whatever I please.

>... Or are you just out to provoke a discussion for the heck of it ? That
>would be a trifle annoying you know. :-)

Are you annoyed? Good.

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:07:38 -0600, Wildman <best...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>TSRs can be loaded into upper memory, if an expanded memory
>manager is installed.

In DOS 2.x / 3.x that meant 3rd party products costing extra money.

[Trifle Menot]

For those who missed it the first time:

Page 138 of PC from the Inside Out (3rd edition) says:

If your code might run on an 8088 manufactured before 1983, you need to
bracket the MOV SS / MOV SP instructions with a CLI / STI pair ... All
later x86 chips automatically disable interrupts for the instruction
immediately following a MOV SS,r/m instruction.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> I didn't. That was a quote from Williams.

And you wielded it. When you do than be at least prepared to defend _your
usage_ of it. Either that, or put it forward as a question.

Currently all you are showing here is that you have no problem with trying
to provoke someone, but when called out on it you're trying to hide behind
someone elses back. Rather childish ...

> I'll post whatever I please.

Yep, we all can see that.

> Are you annoyed? Good.

Ah, thank you for confirming to us you're just trolling about. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

tpjp7c9gmr1ppue7u...@4ax.com...

[Wildman]

Yes, that is true but your post said dos 5. Make up your mind.

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:39:43 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>Ah, thank you for confirming to us you're just trolling about. :-)

One man's troll is another man's treasure. You can get off my thread and
stay off.

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:38:40 -0600, Wildman <best...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In DOS 2.x / 3.x that meant 3rd party products costing extra money.

>Yes, that is true but your post said dos 5. Make up your mind.

No, I quoted Al Williams book which has DOS 5 in the title. Pay
attention.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> In DOS 2.x / 3.x that meant 3rd party products costing extra money.

Why are you talking about _then_, when Mateusz is obviously "at it" _now_ ?
Are you confused or something ? Or are you just _trying_ to be confusing ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s
Don't like this post ? I'm sorry, but "I'll post whatever I please." (how
do you like them apples ? :-D )

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

olkp7c9ls1n373spq...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:02:49 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>> In DOS 2.x / 3.x that meant 3rd party products costing extra money.

>Why are you talking about _then_, when Mateusz is obviously "at it" _now_ ?
>Are you confused or something ? Or are you just _trying_ to be confusing ?

This is my thread. Not Mateusz. Why are you confused to think my thread
is dependent on his?

If you don't like what I post, ignore it or suffer. It won't bother me
if you suffer.

Are you German? Germans love to suffer. They elected Merkel!

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> One man's troll is another man's treasure.

I can't disagree with you there, you making that rather obvious. :-)

> You can get off my thread and stay off.

I could, but why ? Wasn't it you who said "I'll post whatever I please."
? Deal with it when others adopt what you are advocating (not as funny
now, isn't it ?).

But there is a rather simple way to get me off of your back fast: stop
trolling.

_Think_ before you post (have you figured out yet why Mateusz hasn't, and
probably never will combine his program with the packet-driver ? There are
multiple reasons for that), and if you're not sure put it forward as a
_question_ . Also do not try to pull stuf outof context (like you did with
that EMM post of yours).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

b8up7chqi2vgf98bg...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:36:18 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>_Think_ before you post (have you figured out yet why Mateusz hasn't, and
>probably never will combine his program with the packet-driver ? There are
>multiple reasons for that), and if you're not sure put it forward as a
>_question_ .

He asked for ideas on why his TSR was not working. I can't debug code
without seeing it, so I asked if he could post it. I at least looked at
the code and asked some questions. Not one of you expert geniuses
offered any help.

The ideas behind his code didn't make sense to me so I asked for an
overview and purpose, which he ignored. Typical programmer, unwilling to
document their ideas.

Where was your righteous indignation then?

To me, you're the one trolling. I won't engage you much longer. You're
just another pseudo intellectual old timer who thinks they're in charge.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> This is my thread. Not Mateusz.

On;y in the way that you _started_ this thread. You definitily do not _own_
it.

> Why are you confused to think my thread is dependent on his?

I don't know .... Maybe because Mateusz was/is busy with writing a
particular TSR, you responding to that, and you now "suddenly" are creating
a thread about TSR's ?

Either that, or you have been posting random shit nobody has asked for, and
which does not contain any question either. Make your choice. :-)

> If you don't like what I post, ignore it or suffer.

I'm sorry, but the address of that line did not match any recipient. Here,
have your line back. :-)

> It won't bother me if you suffer.

It actually does to me. I rather have you learn instead. But if you
cannot (or refuse to) do that I'm content with it.

> Are you German? Germans love to suffer. They elected Merkel!

Do _you_ like to suffer ? I mean, if those people are the first think you
think of you must have some connection with them ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

b0vp7ctn1jd1vk0iq...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:00:59 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>you have been posting random shit nobody has asked for

Suffer.

[Wildman]

Dos 5 was the only version mentioned. You said nothing about
dos 2.x / 3.x in that post. I do pay attention but I am not
a mind reader. Do you read what you write?

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:07:47 -0600, Wildman <best...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dos 5 was the only version mentioned. You said nothing about
>dos 2.x / 3.x in that post. I do pay attention but I am not
>a mind reader. Do you read what you write?

If complaining is all you have, I'm not interested.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> (have you figured out yet why Mateusz hasn't, and probably never
> will combine his program with the packet-driver ? There are multiple
> reasons for that)
>

> He asked for ideas on why his TSR was not working.

Nope, wrong reference I'm afraid. Try again.

> The ideas behind his code didn't make sense to me so I asked
> for an overview and purpose, which he ignored.

No, you asked for stuff you could _easily_ have figured out for yourself. In
short, you where lazy to a fault.

And that in the same paragraph you showed (to Mateusz) that you have no idea
why someone would use two instead of a single TSR, both of which makes your
knowledge and possible insights into the problem rather questionable.

I could explain INT 2F to you as well as what a packet-driver is (and why
its a good idea _not_ to absorb its code into another program), but I get
the feeling I would just be wasting my time.

> Typical programmer, unwilling to document their ideas.

Typical "I have no idea what the actual problem is, lets demand something we
_can_ say (read: challenge) the guy about" attitude.

> Where was your righteous indignation then?

Still in my back-pocket I'm afraid. And for the record, would you have
understood, let alone accepted an "my ideas to the why of what I'm doing are
irellevant to the how of why its not working" reply ? No ? Than ignoring
you was the friendliest thing he could have done.

And for the record, I've met a few people just like you: No idea what the
problem was, but lots of talk about how I should not even try to do
something like it, and how I should use some (never actually specified)
other thing instead. As a result I've also learned not to go along a
"explain why you are doing what you are doing" request/demand, but I'm a bit
more direct and crude about my rejection. :-)

> To me, you're the one trolling. I won't engage you much longer.

That sounds good to me. I take it you're going to leave this newsgroup, and
possibly the internet too ? :-D

> You're just another pseudo intellectual old timer

And you are someone who (still) simply _knows_ he knows everything (despite
proof of the opposite), and too "young" to realize that (or to daft to
accept it :-\ ).

And thank you for calling me an "old timer". My dad will get a kick outof
that.

> who thinks they're in charge.

Who here tried to "shoo" me out of this thread, tried to claim ownership of
and such ? I think it was you. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was you. :-)

As I said before, the fastest way to get me off your back is to show that
you "start your brain before you engage your mouth".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

m21q7cti7op9a66qq...@4ax.com...

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> Suffer.

I'll take your suggestion into consideration.

Nope, currently I'm enjoying our sparring to much. How's it on your side,
still enjoying it too I hope ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

6k2q7cth6hi9fngbp...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:14:25 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>And for the record, I've met a few people just like you: No idea what the
>problem was, but lots of talk about how I should not even try to do
>something like it, and how I should use some (never actually specified)
>other thing instead. As a result I've also learned not to go along a
>"explain why you are doing what you are doing" request/demand, but I'm a bit
>more direct and crude about my rejection. :-)

Why should I spend my time helping people without knowing their purpose
and goal? Maybe you're too young to understand that.

>And thank you for calling me an "old timer". My dad will get a kick outof
>that.

Old timer, or smart ass kid pseudo intellectual. They're all the same.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> If complaining is all you have, I'm not interested.

Lolz. That really describes you, doesn't it ? If the truth of someones
statement is not to your liking you just evict it from your own
reality-bubble. :-D

And yes, Wildman was quite correct in saying that the _only_ reference in
the message he replied to was to DOS 5 (I hope you _do_ realize we all can
easily leaf back to those messages ?).

That you than _after the fact_ try to throw in some blurb about 'in DOS 2.x
/3.x ...' is simply laughable (and rather transparent), and Wildman,
rightfully I might say, called you out on that.

... besides the fact ofcourse that you tried to make it sound (again, after
the fact) as if it was all about "then", where Wildman was definitily
talking about the here-and-now.

Than you try tomake it sound as if Wildman read the wrong thing -- but you
never mentioned what he should have read instead. Ofcourse, that _might_
have been caused by the mere fact that _there wasn't anything else to read_
... :-)

Which you most likely where well aware of, but such a detail did not stop
you from trying to bluff your way into obtaining the upper hand.

When Wildman called you out on _that_ you where suddenly unwilling to
continue to "play".

Geee.... I wonder why .... Lolz.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
You know, Your "name" is rather transparent. Like "King", first name
"Nosmo".

I wonder if, in an earlier incarnation, you where perhaps a vulcan, a fox,
or something else with pointy ears ...

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

li3q7cthrmv7kluem...@4ax.com...

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:01:26 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:

>> If complaining is all you have, I'm not interested.

>Lolz. That really describes you, doesn't it ? If the truth of someones
>statement is not to your liking you just evict it from your own
>reality-bubble. :-D
>
>And yes, Wildman was quite correct in saying that the _only_ reference in
>the message he replied to was to DOS 5 (I hope you _do_ realize we all can
>easily leaf back to those messages ?).
>
>That you than _after the fact_ try to throw in some blurb about 'in DOS 2.x
>/3.x ...' is simply laughable (and rather transparent), and Wildman,
>rightfully I might say, called you out on that.
>
>... besides the fact ofcourse that you tried to make it sound (again, after
>the fact) as if it was all about "then", where Wildman was definitily
>talking about the here-and-now.
>
>Than you try tomake it sound as if Wildman read the wrong thing -- but you
>never mentioned what he should have read instead. Ofcourse, that _might_
>have been caused by the mere fact that _there wasn't anything else to read_
>... :-)
>
>Which you most likely where well aware of, but such a detail did not stop
>you from trying to bluff your way into obtaining the upper hand.
>
>When Wildman called you out on _that_ you where suddenly unwilling to
>continue to "play".

By now it's obvious you are obsessed with my posts. You can get help for
that disorder.

Bye troll.

[Wildman]

And maybe a pointed tail, red eyes and horns.

[Trifle Menot]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:19:54 -0600, Wildman <best...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And maybe a pointed tail, red eyes and horns.

I've not plonked you yet, but if that other guy is your buddy, you're
next.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> Why should I spend my time helping people without knowing their
> purpose and goal?

I don't know, that is for everyone to decide for themselves. I know that I
seldom need to know the actual goal of something to be able to help with a
(detail) problem. Just like the car mechanic does not need to know where a
car will be driven to to be able to replace a punctured tire.

> Maybe you're too young to understand that.

Maybe you're simply to arrogant in what you think you may expect/demand in
return for your help. Hint: You can _think_ whomever you're "helping" owes
you their first born, but most first-born parents think differently about
that :-)

> Old timer, or smart ass kid pseudo intellectual. They're all the same.

Yeah, I understand. Everyone who does not agree with you is all the same,
no ? Kid, grow up.

By the way: Nice jump from "I know you're an old guy" to "I do not have a
clue".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

4j8q7c9ifm3aks630...@4ax.com...

[Wildman]

I almost wish I cared.

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> By now it's obvious you are obsessed with my posts.

Not really. If I would have been I would have googled you and read all of
that too. Here I just hope to annoy you enough to make you decide to shape
up or ship out (though I prefer the former).

Oops, I should not have said that. Being the kid you are you I'm quite
certain you have now decided that whatever may happen, you will _not_ stop
doing exactly as you please. So predictable ...

On the other hand, I might be playing the "if you know that I know that you
know ..." trick here. :-) You stil know what to do to _not_ do what I
want ? :-)

> You can get help for that disorder.

Not needed. Its just as with a cold. Without treatment it takes about 7
days to get rid of it, with treatment just a week. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

nn9q7chtb8uhl3ji1...@4ax.com...

[R.Wieser]

Trifle,

> I've not plonked you yet, but if that other guy is your buddy,
> you're next.

You _plonked_ me ? Why ? What did I do ? I didn't even call you
names! (and if you consider my assessment based on your actions "calling
names", in my country the truth is an absolute defence)

Ofcourse, being "plonked" might be preferrable to be one of the people
you're trying to "help" :-P

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

v0bq7cducushe600b...@4ax.com...

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Aw, a flamewar. just what usenet needs.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug