DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?
Matt McDevitt
I know all the good DOS games use it and it gives you all kinds of nice
extensions...but where do you get it? Documentation.....how do you use
DOS/4GW? And when I make the next Quake with it >grin< can I distribute
the key to the games power, namely DOS4/GW?
I'm in the dark on this....any answers would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
--
Matt McDevitt
-->mak...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Johnson
Matt McDevitt (mak...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I know all the good DOS games use it and it gives you all kinds of nice
: extensions...but where do you get it? Documentation.....how do you use
: DOS/4GW? And when I make the next Quake with it >grin< can I distribute
: the key to the games power, namely DOS4/GW?
: I'm in the dark on this....any answers would be much appreciated.
Try Watcom C++.
Terry Colligan
"Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I know all the good DOS games use it and it gives you all kinds of nice
>extensions...but where do you get it?
DOS/4GW, a product of Tenberry Software, is included for 'free', in
Powersoft/Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers. The version they
include is 1.97.
You can also buy it from us, but it's not quite 'free'. There are
later versions, with better Win95 support, as well as more capable
versions.
You may have heard of us as 'Rational Systems' -- that was our
old name.
>Documentation.....how do you use
>DOS/4GW?
You link it with your application -- it's pretty transparent.
You program it using the DPMI spec.
We have a manual available that would help, and there is some
documentation in the Watcom packaging as well.
More details are available on our web page, www.tenberry.com.
>And when I make the next Quake with it >grin< can I distribute
>the key to the games power, namely DOS4/GW?
Yes, as long as you have a legal copy of DOS/4GW.
Can we use your phrase, 'the key to games power'? ;-)
>I'm in the dark on this....any answers would be much appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>Matt McDevitt
>-->mak...@ix.netcom.com
Hope this helps...
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
*InstantC C interpreter/incremental compiler for Windows:
More reliable C code developed in half the time!
*DOS/16M, DOS/4GW and DOS/4G DOS extenders:
Address 64MB memory in DOS!
in...@tenberry.com phone:(508)653-6006 fax:(508)655-2753
Dennis Moran
Terry Colligan <ter...@tenberry.com> wrote in article
<333b45c6...@client.ne.news.psi.net>...
> "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I know all the good DOS games use it and it gives you all kinds of nice
> >extensions...but where do you get it?
>
> DOS/4GW, a product of Tenberry Software, is included for 'free', in
> Powersoft/Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers. The version they
> include is 1.97.
>
> You can also buy it from us, but it's not quite 'free'. There are
> later versions, with better Win95 support, as well as more capable
> versions.
>
> You may have heard of us as 'Rational Systems' -- that was our
> old name.
>
> >Documentation.....how do you use
> >DOS/4GW?
>
> You link it with your application -- it's pretty transparent.
>
> You program it using the DPMI spec.
>
> We have a manual available that would help, and there is some
> documentation in the Watcom packaging as well.
>
> More details are available on our web page, www.tenberry.com.
>
> >And when I make the next Quake with it >grin< can I distribute
> >the key to the games power, namely DOS4/GW?
>
> Yes, as long as you have a legal copy of DOS/4GW.
>
> Can we use your phrase, 'the key to games power'? ;-)
>
Well, I know where he got the idea for this. It seems that almost every
major dos game uses DOS/4GW...
>
> >I'm in the dark on this....any answers would be much appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >--
> >Matt McDevitt
> >-->mak...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Hope this helps...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
> Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
>
> *InstantC C interpreter/incremental compiler for Windows:
> More reliable C code developed in half the time!
>
> *DOS/16M, DOS/4GW and DOS/4G DOS extenders:
> Address 64MB memory in DOS!
> in...@tenberry.com phone:(508)653-6006 fax:(508)655-2753
>
>
>
I was wondering, since Carmack compiled Quake with djgpp, did he have to
buy DOS/4GW from you?
--
Dennis Moran (aka Coolio)
coo...@coolio9.com
http://coolio9.com/
Adrian Urquhart
"Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I know all the good DOS games use it and it gives you all kinds of nice
>extensions...but where do you get it? Documentation.....how do you use
>DOS/4GW? And when I make the next Quake with it >grin< can I distribute
>the key to the games power, namely DOS4/GW?
>I'm in the dark on this....any answers would be much appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>Matt McDevitt
>-->mak...@ix.netcom.com
DOS4GW comes only with Watcom C/C++. However, Quake was written using
DJGPP, a free 32 bit C/C++ compiler :o)
Adrian.
CrowTRobo
"Dennis Moran" <coo...@coolio9.com> wrote:
>I was wondering, since Carmack compiled Quake with djgpp, did he have to
>buy DOS/4GW from you?
You don't need DOS/4GW when using djgpp, it comes with it's own free
extender (CWSDPMI).
CrowTRobo
MSTie #59332
N.R.H. Black
If memory serves the license that comes with the Watcom compiler
allows you to distribute 4GW free but only if it is distributed with
a program compiled with the Watcom compiler.
My understanding is therefore that if you go this route you must at
least include a stub program generated with Watcom, and of course you
must have a Watcom license per developer seat that is using 4GW to be
legal. But once you have a Watcom generated executable the runtime
license seems to be remarkably free of restrictions as compared to
other vendors (read the fine print). Beware of outdated versions of
4GW by reputation it had some nasty bugs that would show up only with
certain BIOSes and/or brands of computer. The 4GW/DPMI debugger that
comes with the Watcom compiler is a must have too, I could never get
SoftIce to do source debugging of 4GW programs.
Caveat - I am not a lawyer, I could be, and often am, wrong
Henry
Adrian Urquhart (urqu...@netcomuk.co.uk) wrote:
Steve Waldo
In case it hasn't already been mentioned, there is an alternative to 4GW
called CauseWay. CauseWay is a drop in replacement for 4GW that has some
advantages, such as no startup banner and really excellent support. It's
not free but probably worth a look for serious developers. I bought it
after FlashTek went out of business. It's available from Devore Software &
Consulting - http://www.devoresoftware.com
Chris Marriott
In article <01bc3c72$fe297780$8bed90ce@default>, Steve Waldo
<wal...@bitstream.net> writes
Do you feel that the DOS market is still significant? Rather than using
a DOS extender, isn't it better to write for a 32-bit platform such as
Win95 and avoid all the hassles in the first place? Speaking from
personal experience, the Win95 version of my software far, far outsells
the Windows 3.1 version - I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
way out!
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Creators of fine astronomy software for Windows.
For full details, visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Terry Colligan
nrhb...@datatamers.com (N.R.H. Black) wrote:
>If memory serves the license that comes with the Watcom compiler
>allows you to distribute 4GW free but only if it is distributed with
>a program compiled with the Watcom compiler.
Correct!
>My understanding is therefore that if you go this route you must at
>least include a stub program generated with Watcom, and of course you
>must have a Watcom license per developer seat that is using 4GW to be
>legal.
Correct!
>But once you have a Watcom generated executable the runtime
>license seems to be remarkably free of restrictions as compared to
>other vendors (read the fine print).
Also true!
>Beware of outdated versions of
>4GW by reputation it had some nasty bugs that would show up only with
>certain BIOSes and/or brands of computer.
Yes, you should certainly be using the latest version -- 1.97 is the
latest version from Watcom..
Once you have a legal Watcom version, we have a 2.01 version that
has a number of improvements, particularly with regard to Win95 and
compatability issues. Visit our web site for more details.
>The 4GW/DPMI debugger that
>comes with the Watcom compiler is a must have too, I could never get
>SoftIce to do source debugging of 4GW programs.
Good advice...
>Caveat - I am not a lawyer, I could be, and often am, wrong
>
>Henry
You did pretty well from memory! :)
Hope this helps...
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
*InstantC C interpreter/incremental compiler for Windows:
More reliable C code developed in half the time!
in...@tenberry.com phone:(508)653-6006 fax:(508)655-2753
Paul Schlyter
In article <s0lixEAr...@chrism.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Marriott <ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Speaking from personal experience, the Win95 version of my software
> far, far outsells the Windows 3.1 version
of SkyMap -- you released it only for Win95! Those who wants a Win3.1
version of SkyMap are forced to settle for the older version. Of
course most people wants the latest version, which is available only
for Win95.
> - I believe that DOS is well and truly on its way out!
each and every copy if Win95, and Win95 cannot boot without it.
Set "BOOTGUI=0" in MSDOS.SYS, and you'll have a plain DOS machine
after bootup -- up can then start Win95 by typing "Win", just as
you did on DOS 6, 5, etc. If you want, you can start Win 3.x instead
of Win95 on top of DOS 7....
But of course few people run plain DOS today, without either Win3.x
or Win95 on top of it.
BTW, how well does the DOS version of SkyMap sell, compared to the
Win3.1 and Win95 versions? :-)))
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@net.ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://www.raditex.se/~pausch/ -- now updated daily!
Jeff Vogel
In article <s0lixEAr...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, Chris Marriott
<ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
> way out!
I tend to tell prospective shareware developers one rule,
Develop not just for users now, but for users five years from now.
and its corollary,
Never, ever develop for an OS its maker is trying to kill.
- Jeff Vogel, Keeper of Exile, Spiderweb Software, Inc.
Check out Exile: Escape From the Pit, Exile II: Crystal Souls,
and Exile III: Ruined World, the hit shareware rpg's for
Macintosh and Windows 3.1/95. Find them at http://www.spidweb.com!
Alaric Dailey
CrowTRobo (toms...@onix.com) wrote:
True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
--
--Alaric Dailey (ala...@novia.net) :->
#############################################################################
Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.
Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.
Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.
Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.
Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty;
It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.
-Lao Tzu
Adrian Gothard
In message <01bc3c72$fe297780$8bed90ce@default>
"Steve Waldo" <wal...@bitstream.net> writes:
> In case it hasn't already been mentioned, there is an alternative to 4GW
> called CauseWay. CauseWay is a drop in replacement for 4GW that has some
> advantages, such as no startup banner and really excellent support. It's
> not free but probably worth a look for serious developers. I bought it
> after FlashTek went out of business. It's available from Devore Software &
> Consulting - http://www.devoresoftware.com
That sounds interesting.
I use Microtek's C compiler which can use 4GW if I set an environment
variable, but when I do, it doesn't output any banner.
Adrian
---
WWW WWW Adrian Gothard
WWW WWW White Horse Design.
WWW WW WWW
WWWWWWWWWW agot...@zetnet.co.uk
WWWW WWWW adrian....@rdl.co.uk
If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z, where
X is "work", Y is "play", Z is "Keep your mouth shut" -- Albert Einstein
CrowTRobo
ala...@oasis.novia.net (Alaric Dailey) wrote:
>CrowTRobo (toms...@onix.com) wrote:
>: You don't need DOS/4GW when using djgpp, it comes with it's own free
>: extender (CWSDPMI).
>:
>True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
I just checked my Quake dir and there is no sign of DOS/4GW, only
CWSDPMI.Besides, if it did use DOS/4GW you would see the copyright
while the program started.Quake has no such copyright.
CrowTRobo
MSTie #59332
Terry Colligan
Adrian Gothard <agot...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <01bc3c72$fe297780$8bed90ce@default>
> "Steve Waldo" <wal...@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> In case it hasn't already been mentioned, there is an alternative to 4GW
>> called CauseWay. CauseWay is a drop in replacement for 4GW that has some
>> advantages, such as no startup banner and really excellent support. It's
>> not free but probably worth a look for serious developers. I bought it
>> after FlashTek went out of business. It's available from Devore Software &
>> Consulting - http://www.devoresoftware.com
>
>That sounds interesting.
>
>I use Microtek's C compiler which can use 4GW if I set an environment
>variable, but when I do, it doesn't output any banner.
Actually, it's *supposed* to output a banner, but a few versions
were released where the banner was turned off by default.
We were a little too generous in those versions, I'm afraid...
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
*InstantC C interpreter/incremental compiler for Windows:
More reliable C code developed in half the time!
*DOS/16M, DOS/4GW and DOS/4G DOS extenders:
Address 64MB memory in DOS!
Cory Bloyd
Alaric Dailey wrote:
>
> CrowTRobo (toms...@onix.com) wrote:
> : "Dennis Moran" <coo...@coolio9.com> wrote:
> :
> : >I was wondering, since Carmack compiled Quake with djgpp, did he have to
> : >buy DOS/4GW from you?
> :
> : extender (CWSDPMI).
> :
> True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
My copy of Quake, as well as every other MSDOS version I've ever heard
of,
comes with and uses cwsdpmi. Check your directory again. If you are
certain
that there is no copy of cwsdpmi.exe in your Quake directoy or your PATH
and
there is an .exe for DOS/4GW and you have some evidence that is is being
used
(DOS/4GW usually announces itself upon loading) then I would like to
here
about it.
Michael Thornberg
Jeff Vogel <spi...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<spidweb-3103...@sea-ts4-p10.wolfenet.com>...
> In article <s0lixEAr...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, Chris Marriott
> <ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
> > way out!
<snip!>
> Never, ever develop for an OS its maker is trying to kill.
>
If there are enough people programming for dos then microsoft will be
unable to kill the dos.
or as a representative for microsoft (who's name I've forgotten) put it.
"...we are stuck with dos for a considerable time.." This implies that
dos will indeed vanish but not for number of years to come;so you are
partially correct.
The only reason for maintaining a system is if there are people using it.
And I know from (good) sources that there are a lot of software coming
out for dos only. Even though it's mainly for industries and sensitive
high end users such as nuclear plants where windows is far to unreliable
to be used as a watchdog.
But there are also a lot of games being done for dos,not as many
as last year though. Also take in mind that microsoft has grown too large
and is in the danger zone of being slammed with trust laws, if that should
happen then you will see a development not unlike what happened to
rockefeller. So what I'm trying to point out is that develop for what you
believe in. If the product is good enough people is not going to care if it
is
dos or win95. Mind you that dos4gw run from a dos icon is just as
easy as clicking on an win95 icon. Besides Dos will always be faster then
windows any day. I would like to point out though that applications are
generally best done in win95 as long as the user can be expected to
put up with lost performance and also if the programmer needs the resources
windows has got implemented in the system.
/Mike.T
Peerapol Moemeng
Cory Bloyd (blo...@cs.purdue.edu) wrote:
DOS/4GW banner at startup can be suppressed by issuing environment setting
before calling it.
SET DOS4G=quiet
Regards,
'1'
--
O============================================O .$$$$'
o Peerapol Moemeng (Prl:-- The Silent Man) o .$$$$$$$'
o=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-o .$$$'
o E-mail Address : u371...@au.ac.th o .$$$'
o : u371...@maia.cl.au.ac.th o .$$$'
o : p...@edison.s-t.au.ac.th o .$$$'
O============================================O .$$$$$$$$$$$.
Ditmar Van Belle
Chris Marriott (ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: the Windows 3.1 version - I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
: way out!
Hum, excuse me for interrupting, but did you ever hear about the
Meterious Knights of the Order of the Command Line?
visit http://igweb.vub.ac.be/knights
THE COMMAND LINE WILL NEVER O NO NEVER DISAPPEAR, DID YOU HEAR ME???
--
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____________________
|___ | | ___| | ___| | _ | | ___| | _ | | _ |
/ / | |_ | |_ | |_| | | |___ | | | | | |_| |
/ / | _| | _| | ___| |___ | | | | | | ___| a Club --0-- member
/ /__ | |___ | |___ | | ___| | | |_| | | |
|_____| |_____| |_____| |_| |_____| |_____| |_| _________________________
"Satan ain't a god of Evil. It's a god of fun!"
Slaine
Dos4gw comes with Watcom C, and it`s royalty free from then on.
> > Never, ever develop for an OS its maker is trying to kill.
>
> If there are enough people programming for dos then microsoft will be
> unable to kill the dos.
Microsoft could charge a license fee for using DirectX, most sensible
people are keeping their DOS options open.
DOS games will work on just about any PC, whereas DirectX games
only work with Win95. You`d be amazed at the number of 3.11 users
still out there.
However, in MSs inimitable style, they can and are investing
bucketloads of cash into making DirectX a viable games platform,
which at the moment, it isn`t.
Cheers
Slaine
Michael Thornberg
Slaine <sla...@eternal.prestel.co.uk> skrev i inlägg
<01bc4453$725245a0$5a43...@prs6id9y.prestel.co.uk>...
> Dos4gw comes with Watcom C, and it`s royalty free from then on.
>
> DOS games will work on just about any PC, whereas DirectX games
> only work with Win95. You`d be amazed at the number of 3.11 users
> still out there.
I know, I am working part time fixing peoples computers.
>
> However, in MSs inimitable style, they can and are investing
> bucketloads of cash into making DirectX a viable games platform,
> which at the moment, it isn`t.
>
Agreed,and it is worth mentioning that directX has reached it's fifth
incarnation (going for nirvana :-) ). No,seriously;I think that DOS is
(and always will be)the best way of playing games.
Not:Perfomance was the thought intended.
As long as there is DOS I will program for it;Should DOS vanish then
I'll write my own boot system. There is no way I will surrender to win95
with it's plug and prey :-);messy memory handling and general F-ups.
(pardon my french).
/Mike.T
Timo Salmi
In article <5ie41i$5...@rc1.vub.ac.be>,
Ditmar Van Belle <dit...@igwe8.vub.ac.be> wrote:
:Chris Marriott (ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:: the Windows 3.1 version - I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
:: way out!
:
:Hum, excuse me for interrupting, but did you ever hear about the
:Meterious Knights of the Order of the Command Line?
You both make sense, but from very different angles. DOS is
gradually on its way out from the commercial point of view of
shareware authors since it is a declining platform for new
applications. The current markets are in Windows applications. The
existing DOS usage, will not, however, disappear in the foreseeable
future since the old machines' user base is far too large for that
well into the next century. But there is little or no potential for
renewal in there.
Followups narrowed down.
All the best, Timo
....................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi Co-moderator of news:comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at ftp:// & http://garbo.uwasa.fi archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <URL:http://uwasa.fi/~ts> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Mikhovitch
Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
*why*?????
******** x ,
************* :*.
*************** , x ,
******* ******* x
**** O . O **** _____ ,
**\#######/** | | ,
|-oOO##0##OOo---------------------w-------|
>.. ### .Mik. |
| # TIAS Loborotories (c) 1997 ..<
> n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au |
| Who Hath the How is Careless of the Why <
|-----------------------------------------|
| | W | | | |
---- ---- | |.|
| | | | | | |
(-- / \ --) \\|wWw|//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently complicated technology is no different from Magick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heath Hunnicutt
I have redirected followups to alt.msdos.programmer ONLY. Please do
not reply to the original post in this thread, as it was cross-posted
to several inappropriate groups, such as alt.sb.programmer and
comp.programming.
Heath
Dave McNeill
>Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
>obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
>*why*?????
Probably because they wanted to reuse the acronym ;-)
BTW, trim your sig, man.
dave
Bernhard Glück
On 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT, ala...@oasis.novia.net (Alaric Dailey)
wrote:
>CrowTRobo (toms...@onix.com) wrote:
>: "Dennis Moran" <coo...@coolio9.com> wrote:
>:
>
>:
>True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
>--
>
>--Alaric Dailey (ala...@novia.net) :->
>
>#############################################################################
>Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.
>Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.
>Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.
>Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.
>Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty;
>It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.
>
> -Lao Tzu
QUAKE USES DEFINITLY CWSDPMI /STUB IS INCLUDED IN EXE FILE AND THE
FILE IS ALSO PRESENT; if you debug quake.exe you see that it calls
CWSDPMI first
Roger Nelson
(Get it? .COM/64K haha...)
Christopher George Davis
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Mikhovitch wrote:
> Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
> obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
> *why*?????
I beleive because it dosen;t fit into their 32-bit/protected mode systems
very well. The com format is basically a fixed position, and dosen't
support the modularity that microsoft tries to build into it's programs.
But What does it matter if Microsoft says .COM is obsolete. I Think they
also said unix is dead several times. :)
===============================================================================
A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions that
make it fail.
===============================================================================
| Chris Davis |
da...@ecf.utoronto.ca | Computer Engineering OTO | www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~davis
| University of Toronto |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x86's, Sun3's and Sparc's running Debian Linux, NetBSD, SunOS and Solaris
In a Parallel Computer and Linux Clustering Project.
===============================================================================
"Together we will rule the world,
all by myself"
===============================================================================
Ray Moon
Mikhovitch wrote:
> Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
> obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
> *why*?????
Sorry that this reply is off-topic for some of the newsgroups.
Hopefully, this will not lead to long flame threads that is possible
with this topic. I come from c.l.a.x where this is the norm
unfortunately. Now, for my answer.
The .com file format has many limitations that make is less than
desireable executible format in today's operating environments/systems.
First, it is an exact executible binary image and does not tell the
operating system anything about system resources needed to execute. In
today's GUI interfaces starting with Windows, Windows 95 and NT, the
operating system needs to know this information to efficiently allocate
system resources. DOS just assumes that all system memory is needed and
allocates it when a .com file is executed.
Second, all code, initialized data and initial stack are limited to 64K
bytes. I will not argue with anyone that today's applications are code
bloated, but I will argue that it is impossible to get any reasonable
functionality into 64K bytes.
A .com executible usually will execute in the DOS boxes available from
all of these operating systems so you can still use them if they are
well behaved. Obviously, trying to go directly to hardware in a
multitasking environment is not being well behaved.
I write 100% assembly language programs. I do not use the .com format
for them. I have not found any inconvenience in doing so. I DO
understand that this is a personal observation and not applicable to the
general programming population in general. Many years ago, I developed
an assembly language startup code that performs the same functions as
startup code that C compilers/linkers add to start C programs you
write. So I start writing my assembly programs with a main procedure
just as in HLLs. I will be releasing this code shortly.
Hope that this answers your question.
Ray
=====================================================================
Ray Moon
ray...@moonware.dgsys.com
http://www2.dgsys.com/~raymoon/moonware.html
Home of MoonWare Shareware and the x86 Assembly Language FAQ
Come steal my pages... Well, not steal but come and see!
Mikhovitch
Har Har Har... that was actually funny, I laughed until I stopped.
Anyhow... point taken.
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Roger Nelson wrote:
> In article <334b6450...@news.demon.co.uk>, dmcn...@pne.co.uk (Dave McNeill) wrote:
> >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:01:38 +1000, Mikhovitch
> ><n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >>Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
> >>obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
> >>*why*?????
> >
Steven Ehrbar
Michael Thornberg <michael....@uddevalla.mail.telia.com> wrote in
article <01bc436f$c17c2220$719ac6c3@a00017729>...
>
>
> Jeff Vogel <spi...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
> <spidweb-3103...@sea-ts4-p10.wolfenet.com>...
> > In article <s0lixEAr...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, Chris Marriott
> > <ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I believe that DOS is well and truly on its
> > > way out!
> <snip!>
> > Never, ever develop for an OS its maker is trying to kill.
> >
>
> If there are enough people programming for dos then microsoft will be
> unable to kill the dos.
Actually, since there are a number of non-Microsoft DOS clones and several
other OSes capable of running DOS programs (PC-DOS, OpenDOS, RxDOS,
PTS-DOS, Real/32, Multiuser DOS, Concurrent DOS, OS/2, Windows NT and
95, and soon FreeDOS), I wouldn't bet on MS's ability to kill DOS.
And even if Microsoft can kill the commercial market and installed base for
all
DOS, by then FreeDOS should be complete enough to package with your
game. At worst, you'll need to explain in your manual how to make a DOS
boot disk with your install program.
Roger Nelson
In article Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>> In article <334b6450...@news.demon.co.uk>, dmcn...@pne.co.uk (Dave
> McNeill) wrote:
>> >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:01:38 +1000, Mikhovitch
>> ><n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
>> >>obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
>> >>*why*?????
>> >
>> >Probably because they wanted to reuse the acronym ;-)
>> >
>> >BTW, trim your sig, man.
>> >
>> >dave
>> Yeah! he better trim his huge sig, it could exceed 64k! 8)
>>
>> (Get it? .COM/64K haha...)
>>
>Anyhow... point taken.
>
I do pretty much everything until I stop. 8-)
On a more serious, note, the .COM format only suport 16 mode operation and 64k
limit for stack, data and code.
Well.. it could support 32 operation, but that's not how the OSs work at this
moment, they expect .exe files.
COM file are simple executable images of code whereas .EXE (or .DLL, or .DRV,
ect) can be one of a few more complexe formats, supporting relocation,
multiple segments with attributes, and all.
The only avantage of a .COM file would be size. For very small DOS program,
it gets the job done in much less space. It's hard to get C++ compilers to
make .COM nowdays, and Visual C++ 16 bit simply can't.
This is why I don't quite see why you were upset they considered .COM format
obsolete. No one uses it anymore. Except that just about every .EXE, .DLLs,
and others have a small .com file called a stub that says sometime 'This
program does not run in DOS mode' if the .exe is executed from DOS only.
Take any .DLL in \windows\system, for example mapi.dll. Open it with
edit.com. You'll see the 'This program requiers Microsoft Windows' waisting
precious disk space in this and any executable file..
An interesting note, COMMAND.COM in win95 is actually a .EXE (see file
header). The .COM remainded for compatibility with old programs. Windows
checks the header or the executable, not just the extention of the file.
I really enjoyed the post of the guy who said that MS was dropping COM files
because MS wanted to re-use the acronyme!
Dr. Feelgood
> An interesting note, COMMAND.COM in win95 is actually a .EXE (see file
> header). The .COM remainded for compatibility with old programs. Windows
> checks the header or the executable, not just the extention of the file.
hehe, yeah I noticed that too. I was looking at it "hmm... this is
bigger than 64k... Hmmmm... This has an MZ header (does it? it's been a
while since I looked at it)". So did they drop the .com format starting
with win95, or was it before? Poor orphan'd .com files.... we should
start a support group.
------
C Program. C program run. C program crash. C programmer get drunk
Anything you thought I said, I didn't
Mikhovitch
I guess that I was a bit upset with MS dropping the .COM format because it
was something from the 'old school' of programming. I can definately see
the advantages of the .EXE format... and now with protected mode
interfaces becoming more and more common (and easy to write for) the
piddly .COM's are disappearing. But how will this effect things like
writing device drivers, or TSR's and such. I'm starting to get the
impression that MS is trying to destroy their command line DOS entirely.
(*Sarcastic mode : OFF*)
Anyhow, thanks for your time! Ciao!
O O
-oooO--(_)---Oooo-------------------------------------------------------
.MiK. Brisbane, Gold and Sunshine Coasts
TIAS (c) Labs. 1997 (New office opening in Melbourne too!! July '97)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently complicated technology
Oooo oooO is no different from Magick
--| (-----) |-----------------------------------------------------------
(_) (_)
> An interesting note, COMMAND.COM in win95 is actually a .EXE (see file
> header). The .COM remainded for compatibility with old programs. Windows
> checks the header or the executable, not just the extention of the file.
>
ic...@onr.com
Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
would most likely exceed 64K.
In <Pine.SOL.3.94.97040...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>, Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> writes:
>Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
>obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
>*why*?????
>
> ******** x ,
> ************* :*.
> *************** , x ,
> ******* ******* x
> **** O . O **** _____ ,
> **\#######/** | | ,
> |-oOO##0##OOo---------------------w-------|
> >.. ### .Mik. |
> | # TIAS Loborotories (c) 1997 ..<
> > n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au |
> | Who Hath the How is Careless of the Why <
> |-----------------------------------------|
> | | W | | | |
> ---- ---- | |.|
> | | | | | | |
> (-- / \ --) \\|wWw|//
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Any sufficiently complicated technology is no different from Magick
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
John Risby
On 11 Apr 1997 03:44:02 GMT, in <5ikc23$p...@mari.onr.com>
ic...@onr.com wrote.....
>Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
>accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
>would most likely exceed 64K.
>
>
What? A lot of very good programs can be written in less than 64K, and why
does everything have to be OO?
I realise we are talking about dos .com files, but one of our popular WINDOWS
programs, Scanline SwiftSearch (http://www.scanline.com/swiftsearch) is
only 59K.
Regards
John
--
John Risby
Scanline Visual Communications, Manchester, England.
** Please visit the new voluntary sector discussion group **
** at http://www.scanline.com/intersect/discussion.html **
Frank
ic...@onr.com wrote:
>
> Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
> accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
> would most likely exceed 64K.
>
> >Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
> >obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
> >*why*?????
> >
Isn't Micro$oft now using .COM to mean Component Object Model modules?
Frank
Roger Nelson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.97041...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>, Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>I guess that I was a bit upset with MS dropping the .COM format because it
>was something from the 'old school' of programming. I can definately see
>the advantages of the .EXE format... and now with protected mode
>interfaces becoming more and more common (and easy to write for) the
>piddly .COM's are disappearing. But how will this effect things like
>writing device drivers, or TSR's and such. I'm starting to get the
>impression that MS is trying to destroy their command line DOS entirely.
>(*Sarcastic mode : OFF*)
Well, I sure don't have any real-mode device drivers on my machine, so
good-bye .com and .sys et al.
As for microsoft, they actually love the command-line. Quite A few thing
under NT must absolutly be done at the command line.
It's DOS and real-mode that must die. It's not microsoft that's holding back
to XTs and 286s, it's customers!
>Anyhow, thanks for your time! Ciao!
That's alright!
Ricardo J. Méndez
Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.94.97041...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>...
> I guess that I was a bit upset with MS dropping the .COM format because
it
> was something from the 'old school' of programming.
Yeah. Something like an old friend dying, isn't it?
> But how will this effect things like writing device drivers, or TSR's and
such.
Well, device drivers will be VxDs, and TSRs... well, in Windows ALL
programs are memory resident all the time, after all. But indeed, the old
sort of device drivers we knew and hated to debug are going away, I
believe.
> I'm starting to get the impression that MS is trying to destroy their
command line DOS
> entirely.
Well, you've got the whole idea pinned down there. Maybe not killing the
command line DOS, but indeed removing the old batch of device drivers and
such things. Windows NT keeps command line, but a command line session is
(can be) completely independent of all the others (different path,
variables, etc). I'm sure that what they're trying to get rid of is
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, and all the things that you can do there that
will affect the whole Windows.
Good luck,
Ricardo J. Méndez
------------------------------
DO NOT SEND ANY MASS MAIL. IT IS NOT WELCOME.
As if you would listen...
Gerry Quinn
In article <334EE2...@worldchat.com>, Frank <ffau...@worldchat.com> wrote:
>ic...@onr.com wrote:
>>
>> Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
>> accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
>> would most likely exceed 64K.
On my site below is a freeware Windows game called Joust, written in C++,
which takes 35Kb zipped. What OO world are you talking about?
BTW, I didn't write it to prove a point, I wrote it to learn C++ and this is
the size it came out.
- Gerry
==================================================================
Mailto: ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Original puzzlers (Windows or Amiga)-> http://indigo.ie/~gerryq
==================================================================
Ziv Caspi
Note that becuase COM files are flat (all segments are the same), there
is little difference between "modern" PE-EXE files and "ancient" COM
files...
Also note that COM is just as relocateable as anything. In fact, this
format aims directly at what Intel had in mind when they created the
segmented architecture for the x86 - being able to relocate everything
simply by changing the segment registers and moving the data. Thus,
loading a COM file into memory requires no "loader" functionality
on part of the OS (the type of pointer and address translations
which would have been required without it and the complex virtual
memory which followed years later).
Ziv.
suma...@NOSPAM.usa.net (Roger Nelson) wrote:
>In article Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>> In article <334b6450...@news.demon.co.uk>, dmcn...@pne.co.uk (Dave
>> McNeill) wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:01:38 +1000, Mikhovitch
>>> ><n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Did anybody know that Microsoft now considers the .COM file format
>>> >>obselete??? That really ticked me off. Whats more... does anybody know
>>> >>*why*?????
>>> >
Ziv Caspi.
Ryan Drake
ic...@onr.com wrote in article <5ikc23$p...@mari.onr.com>...
>Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
>accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
>would most likely exceed 64K.
Both do what they do in under 4K. Check them out. Ripped from
http://www.cdrom.com/pub/demos/hornet/html/demos.html
begin 666 animate.zip
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
!````
`
end
begin 666 chrome2.zip
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
DU!<``%)%041-12XQ4U102P4&``````4`!0`=`0``FQ@`````
`
end
Chris Marriott
>Isn't Micro$oft now using .COM to mean Component Object Model modules?
No. COM objects can be implemented as either executables or DLLs; they
don't have any particular file extension.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Creators of fine astronomy software for Windows.
For full details, visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Duane.G...@massey.ac.nz
ic...@onr.com wrote:
>
> Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
> accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
> would most likely exceed 64K.
Only if the programmer programming it couldn't properly program, or the
compiler compiling it couldn't competently compile.
Duane.
==========================================================
"I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine"
- Bob Dylan (Tight Connection to my Heart)
Duane Griffin
#include<standard_disclaimers.h>
Carl Marg
Duane.G...@massey.ac.nz wrote:
>
> ic...@onr.com wrote:
> >
> > Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
> > accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
> > would most likely exceed 64K.
>
> Only if the programmer programming it couldn't properly program, or the
> compiler compiling it couldn't competently compile.
> Duane.
1. .COM files can be larger than 64K, my COMMAND.COM is over 90K
2. If you happen to be using assembly language, you can do a whole
lot in 64K, in the assembly world a HELLO WORLD would not exceed
64 bytes.
Roger Nelson
In article <3354F4...@okstate.edu>, ma...@okstate.edu wrote:
>
>Duane.G...@massey.ac.nz wrote:
>>
>> ic...@onr.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
>> > accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
>> > would most likely exceed 64K.
>>
>> Only if the programmer programming it couldn't properly program, or the
>> compiler compiling it couldn't competently compile.
>> Duane.
>
>1. .COM files can be larger than 64K, my COMMAND.COM is over 90K
Your [windows 95] command.com isn't a real .COM file, it's a .EXE file
with a .COM extention for backward compatibility with old program who
expect a command.com. You should have checked before posting!! 8)
>2. If you happen to be using assembly language, you can do a whole
> lot in 64K, in the assembly world a HELLO WORLD would not exceed
> 64 bytes.
Big deal. Real mode is dead.
John Q.
And lo, there was much rejoicing among the people when Ray Moon
<ray...@moonware.dgsys.com> had said:
[snip]
>Second, all code, initialized data and initial stack are limited to 64K
>bytes. I will not argue with anyone that today's applications are code
>bloated, but I will argue that it is impossible to get any reasonable
>functionality into 64K bytes.
Well, that certainly explains the unreasonable functionality of
dosshell.com, command.com, ...
Let them eat exe's,
John Q.
Mikhovitch
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Carl Marg wrote:
> Duane.G...@massey.ac.nz wrote:
> >
> > ic...@onr.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, I believe a .COM file is limted to 64K. Now what could anyone ever
> > > accomplish with a program only 64K or less? HELLO WORLD in the OO world
> > > would most likely exceed 64K.
> >
> > Only if the programmer programming it couldn't properly program, or the
> > compiler compiling it couldn't competently compile.
Hmm... Java springs to mind. Hey, so does VB.... You've got a good
point. *8)
> > Duane.
>
> 1. .COM files can be larger than 64K, my COMMAND.COM is over 90K
> 2. If you happen to be using assembly language, you can do a whole
> lot in 64K, in the assembly world a HELLO WORLD would not exceed
> 64 bytes.
>
1. You're using Win'95... aren't you? If you do a dump of the command
interpreter, you'll notice that it has a memory-chain header [MZ] (ie :
it uses multiple segments, .COM's load into origin 100h, and have a
maximum of 64K as they are *single* segment programs). It's an .EXE,
renamed to a .COM file to preserve compatibility with some older progs. :)
2. 26 bytes. With embedded character attributes... possibly 64 bytes. :)
Stay cool!
andrey
You CAN make WORKING .com program bigger than 64k, but you must
use some segments and control segment registers by yourself !!!
///////// -= Blackened =- /////////
P.S SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH
Peter Shaggy Haywood
Groovy hepcat Alaric Dailey was jivin' on 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT in
comp.os.msdos.programmer.
Re: DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?'s a cool scene! Dig
it!
>: You don't need DOS/4GW when using djgpp, it comes with it's own free
>: extender (CWSDPMI).
>:
>True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
I don't think it does. CWSDPMI is, I believe, bound into the program
so an external executable doesn't have to be included with the game.
----- Dig the EVEN NEWER, MORE IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
http://aardvark.apana.org.au/~phaywood/
============= Ain't I'm a dawg!! ==============
Gil Colgate
Peter Shaggy Haywood wrote:
>
> Groovy hepcat Alaric Dailey was jivin' on 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT in
> comp.os.msdos.programmer.
> Re: DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?'
If you buy a commercial copy of DOS4Gw (for example, the one included
with the Watcom compiler) I believe you get a license to allow you to
distribute Dos4GW with your products. You should have a piece of paper
in your hands that explicitly allows you to redistribute
it if you want to be truly legit-- but I'll bet you already got one.
DOS4GW/Pro, last time I saw, was $149... this is a version of DOS4GW
with some extra read me's and limited support. It also comes with a
license.
Roger Nelson
That's right. Dos4GW is free to redistribute with your Watcom license.
(The 'W' means watcom, BTW). That version of the DOS extender is limited
to 16 megs and can't be bound in the executable. The full version of the
DOS4G extender supports more stuff but ends up being very expensive.
Alf P. Steinbach
Roger Nelson wrote:
>
...
> it gets the job done in much less space. It's hard to get C++ compilers to
> make .COM nowdays, and Visual C++ 16 bit simply can't.
Mmmm... Better check your facts. The real advantage of the .COM format
is
that it's so simple that you can type in hex code from a debugger if you
want,
save it as a file, and have an executable. Many small DOS
"improvements"
used to be described as procedure for generating a .COM file using a
debugger. Also means that students can implement small compilers
without
much hassle. This is of interest also for [comp.programming], I think,
but I
trimmed whatever-games.programming from the newsgroup list.
Re VC 1.5x, it generates standard object files, which you
can link as a .COM file if you want. You're talking about linkers, not
about
compilers.
- Alf
Terry Colligan
suma...@NOSPAM.usa.net (Roger Nelson) wrote:
>In article <33587E...@sirius.com>, gcol...@sirius.com wrote:
>>Peter Shaggy Haywood wrote:
>>>
>>> Groovy hepcat Alaric Dailey was jivin' on 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT in
>>> comp.os.msdos.programmer.
>>> Re: DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?'
>>
>>If you buy a commercial copy of DOS4Gw (for example, the one included
>>with the Watcom compiler) I believe you get a license to allow you to
>>distribute Dos4GW with your products. You should have a piece of paper
>>in your hands that explicitly allows you to redistribute
>>it if you want to be truly legit-- but I'll bet you already got one.
>>
>>DOS4GW/Pro, last time I saw, was $149... this is a version of DOS4GW
>>with some extra read me's and limited support. It also comes with a
>>license.
Pro is now $299.
>That's right. Dos4GW is free to redistribute with your Watcom license.
>(The 'W' means watcom, BTW). That version of the DOS extender is limited
>to 16 megs and can't be bound in the executable.
Actually, it's 32 megs...
>The full version of the
>DOS4G extender supports more stuff but ends up being very expensive.
Well, it's not free, but we have lots of different ways to adjust
the pricing, so that it *won't* end up "being very expensive".
More details on our web site...
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
*InstantC C interpreter/incremental compiler for Windows:
More reliable C code developed in half the time!
*DOS/16M, DOS/4GW and DOS/4G DOS extenders:
Address 64MB memory in DOS!
in...@tenberry.com phone:(508)653-6006 fax:(508)655-2753
Jesse Dorland
phay...@aardvark.apana.org.au.STOP.SPAM (Peter "Shaggy" Haywood) wrote:
>
>Groovy hepcat Alaric Dailey was jivin' on 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT in
>comp.os.msdos.programmer.
>Re: DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?'s a cool scene! Dig
>it!
>
>>: You don't need DOS/4GW when using djgpp, it comes with it's own free
>>: extender (CWSDPMI).
>>:
>>True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
>
> I don't think it does. CWSDPMI is, I believe, bound into the program
>so an external executable doesn't have to be included with the game.
My registered version of Quake (v1.06) uses CWSDPMI, and not DOS/4GW. That's
because Quake was made in DJGPP, which includes CWSDPMI, not DOS/4GW.
-Jesse
>
>
>----- Dig the EVEN NEWER, MORE IMPROVED news sig!! -----
>
>-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
> http://aardvark.apana.org.au/~phaywood/
>============= Ain't I'm a dawg!! ==============
>
>
====================================
Very funny Scotty!
Now beam down my clothes!
====================================
Roger Nelson
In article ter...@tenberry.com (Terry Colligan) wrote:
>
>suma...@NOSPAM.usa.net (Roger Nelson) wrote:
>>>DOS4GW/Pro, last time I saw, was $149... this is a version of DOS4GW
>>>with some extra read me's and limited support. It also comes with a
>>>license.
>
> Pro is now $299.
>
>>That's right. Dos4GW is free to redistribute with your Watcom license.
>>(The 'W' means watcom, BTW). That version of the DOS extender is limited
>>to 16 megs and can't be bound in the executable.
>
> Actually, it's 32 megs...
>
>>The full version of the
>>DOS4G extender supports more stuff but ends up being very expensive.
>
> Well, it's not free, but we have lots of different ways to adjust
> the pricing, so that it *won't* end up "being very expensive".
>
> More details on our web site...
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Terry Colligan, President ter...@tenberry.com
>Tenberry Software, Inc. http://www.tenberry.com
Yeah, I called you guys about a year ago. I was working at the time on
Canada's number professionnal tax program, which has a DOS version. We had
to stick to Microsoft C++, though, can't switch to watcom. If I remember
well, you had a VC++ beta at the time, but the royalties really turned us
off... Well, I guess as huge that the ones form Phar Lap. Taxprep uses a
16 bit royalty free dos extender instead until DOS dies... It's not your
fault : There no way any manager at the compagny could have agreed to
paying royaties.
jon
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:59:08 GMT,
phay...@aardvark.apana.org.au.STOP.SPAM (Peter "Shaggy" Haywood)
wrote:
>
>Groovy hepcat Alaric Dailey was jivin' on 2 Apr 1997 23:09:11 GMT in
>comp.os.msdos.programmer.
>Re: DOS4/GW Is it free? Can you distribute it?'s a cool scene! Dig
>it!
>
>>: You don't need DOS/4GW when using djgpp, it comes with it's own free
>>: extender (CWSDPMI).
>>:
>>True, but Quake doesn't come with cwsdpmi, it uses Dos/4gw.
Hmmm... I don't remember seeing that DOS4GW loadup... and I had
thought it was using cwsdpmi. Anyone else know about this?
> I don't think it does. CWSDPMI is, I believe, bound into the program
>so an external executable doesn't have to be included with the game.
I guess that would be easy to do, since CWSDPMI, since (as I
understand) like all the DJGPP stuff, it has the source code freely
available. I suppose you could work it in quite cozily like that...
Bryce Bangerter
Terry Colligan (ter...@tenberry.com) wrote:
: >>DOS4GW/Pro, last time I saw, was $149... this is a version of DOS4GW
: >>with some extra read me's and limited support. It also comes with a
: >>license.
:
: Pro is now $299.
Which includes 10 license copies. Additional distrubtion licenses come
in sets of 250 for $500 (at least last time I checked with Tenberry a
year ago). And Pro comes with more than just a few extra read.me's - it
supports bimodal interrupts, protected mode TSR programming, and the full
functionality of the DPMI spec (non-pro version doesn't support all of
the DPMI calls). Oh, it also handles a full 4G of system memory (as if
anyone had that much).
Course, just go email Tenberry if you really want to know the latest details.
Bryce Bangerter
Mike McLean
On 21 Apr 1997 09:42:00 -0700, jessed...@hotmail.com (Jesse
Dorland) wrote:
>My registered version of Quake (v1.06) uses CWSDPMI, and not DOS/4GW. That's
>because Quake was made in DJGPP, which includes CWSDPMI, not DOS/4GW.
>
>-Jesse
Yes, Quake does come with CWSDPMI. It does not use or suport DOS/4GW.
Quake doesn't actually require CWSDPMI, it can use any DPMI server
such as windows 95. CWSDPMI is just a free DPMI server supplied with
DJGPP written by Charles Sandman. There are other DPMI servers that
work with DJGPP programs, but not all do, such as the one supplied
with Caldera OpenDos 7.01
I hope this helps
Mike