Watcom C/C++ 10.0 Questions
Shawn Scoles
soon, I was looking into other compilers. I followed the many articles
about Borland/Microsoft/Watcomm/Symantic compilers.
Very few people appeared to like the Microsoft and Symmantic compilers
and I have used Borland 4.0 for about a week and it has problems under
OS/2 (Win32s is incompatible with OS/2 2.1 - cannot use 32-bit DPMI
power pack because of this, it also cannot debug DOS programs from the
Windows IDE, and several other problems I have experienced). The only
compiler which seemed to fit my needs, at first, was Watcom 10.0.
Since then, I have seen many advantages and just as many
disadvantages.
Advantages:
1. Multiple platform compilation: 16bit/32bit DOS/Windows, NT, and
OS/2.
2. IDEs included for both OS/2 and Windows which can compile to the
any other platform.
3. A DOS extender included which can address up to 32MB of memory.
Disadvantages:
1. To get it in floppy form instead of CD-ROM form costs $100 more.
2. To get printed documentation, it costs $100+ more (I do not remeber
the exact cost off the top of my head)
3. To get a DOS extender which is able to use more than 32MB costs
another $100+ (if I remember correctly) (this is what I am least
interested in. I do not need more than 32MB of addressable RAM in my
programs)
All of the above were from a variety of posts I was reading - please
correct me if I either got false information or incorrect information.
There was no mention about DOS-based graphics support in any of the
posts I read. I know from experiance that Borland 3.1 (which I have
been happily using for the past year and a half) supports modes at
least to 1024x768x256 if you have the correct BGI files. 4.0 does the
same with correct BGIs. Does Watcom have SVGA support? If so, does
that cost extra, too? Which SVGA crds does it support? Does it
support the VESA SVGA standard? (this is what I am most concerned with)
Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
Signed,
Shawn Scoles
LL
>Disadvantages:
>1. To get it in floppy form instead of CD-ROM form costs $100 more.
scarry thing here is that for an extra $100 u can find a double speed CD
ROM w/ controller in various advertisements... still annoying that they
are charging more than a buck a disk when you have already paid for the
data that is on them.
>2. To get printed documentation, it costs $100+ more (I do not remeber
> the exact cost off the top of my head)
you might consider trying to find version 9.5 which comes w/
documentation, and then upgrading for free.
>There was no mention about DOS-based graphics support in any of the
>posts I read. I know from experiance that Borland 3.1 (which I have
>been happily using for the past year and a half) supports modes at
>least to 1024x768x256 if you have the correct BGI files. 4.0 does the
>same with correct BGIs. Does Watcom have SVGA support? If so, does
>that cost extra, too? Which SVGA crds does it support? Does it
>support the VESA SVGA standard? (this is what I am most concerned with)
well, according to the documentation i have, it handles up to
1024x769x256 for DOS with the included GRAPH.LIB... however, it doesn't
state whether it uses VESA to accomplish it, or if it only supports a
limited number of cards. it says:
Watcom C Graphics Library Documentation Page 1:
1.2 Graphics Adapters
Support is provided for both color and monochrome screens which are
connected to the computer using any of the following graphics adaptesr:
* IBM Monochrome Display/Printer Adapter (MDPA)
* IBM Color Graphics Adapter (CGA)
* IBM Enhanced Graphics Adapter (EGA)
* IBM Multi-Color Graphics Array (MCGA)
* IBM Video Graphics Array (VGA)
* IBM Hercules Monochrome Adapter
* SuperVGA adapters (SVGA) supplied by various manufacturers
...
I couldn't find a list of what manufacturers supplied drivers tho...
lata.
James
ketr...@cs.pdx.edu
ThomRiley
Scoles) writes:
Before sending back Borland 4.0, call them and see if you can get the 4.02
update. They may have already fixed your problems...
Michael D. Ketchen
>sco...@eng.umd.edu (Shawn Scoles) writes:
>
>>Disadvantages:
>>1. To get it in floppy form instead of CD-ROM form costs $100 more.
>
>scarry thing here is that for an extra $100 u can find a double speed CD
>ROM w/ controller in various advertisements... still annoying that they
>are charging more than a buck a disk when you have already paid for the
>data that is on them.
If you get the CD-ROM, you can make the disks yourself or have someone you
know with a CD-ROM make them for you. Besides, given current trends you're
going to have to invest in a CD-ROM eventually, so why not now?
>>2. To get printed documentation, it costs $100+ more (I do not remeber
>> the exact cost off the top of my head)
>
>you might consider trying to find version 9.5 which comes w/
>documentation, and then upgrading for free.
Printed docs are $99 if you're upgrading from 9.5 (everything changes except
Stroustrup's book), or $119 otherwise. (Note that the debugger and the IDE
are all-new for 10.0.)
>>There was no mention about DOS-based graphics support in any of the
>>posts I read. I know from experiance that Borland 3.1 (which I have
>>been happily using for the past year and a half) supports modes at
>>least to 1024x768x256 if you have the correct BGI files. 4.0 does the
>>same with correct BGIs. Does Watcom have SVGA support? If so, does
>>that cost extra, too? Which SVGA crds does it support? Does it
>>support the VESA SVGA standard? (this is what I am most concerned with)
>
>well, according to the documentation i have, it handles up to
>1024x769x256 for DOS with the included GRAPH.LIB... however, it doesn't
>state whether it uses VESA to accomplish it, or if it only supports a
>limited number of cards. [...]
>
>I couldn't find a list of what manufacturers supplied drivers tho...
Watcom's DOS graphics API is a clone of Microsoft's. Graphics support is
all in GRAPH.LIB (ie. no external drivers). I believe they do support VESA,
although I'm not sure which version (probably 1.0 or 1.1--I don't believe
there's any Hi-color support yet).
- Mike
Scott E. Welch
>Since it appears that I will be returning my copy of Borland C++ 4.0
>soon, I was looking into other compilers. I followed the many articles
>about Borland/Microsoft/Watcomm/Symantic compilers.
>compiler which seemed to fit my needs, at first, was Watcom 10.0.
>Since then, I have seen many advantages and just as many
>disadvantages.
>Advantages:
>1. Multiple platform compilation: 16bit/32bit DOS/Windows, NT, and
> OS/2.
>2. IDEs included for both OS/2 and Windows which can compile to the
> any other platform.
>3. A DOS extender included which can address up to 32MB of memory.
>
>Disadvantages:
>1. To get it in floppy form instead of CD-ROM form costs $100 more.
>2. To get printed documentation, it costs $100+ more (I do not remeber
> the exact cost off the top of my head)
>3. To get a DOS extender which is able to use more than 32MB costs
> another $100+ (if I remember correctly) (this is what I am least
> interested in. I do not need more than 32MB of addressable RAM in my
> programs)
>There was no mention about DOS-based graphics support in any of the
>posts I read. I know from experiance that Borland 3.1 (which I have
If you do not need more than 32MB, do not buy the full blown extender.
You can buy a Mitusumi double speed CD-ROM for $150. You can get a single
speed for $99.
Watcom's video libraries cover many many many more modes than Borland's BGI.
The only drawback I have found from Watcom is the compile time which is
at least two to four times longer than Symantec.
You get the manuals in Windows Help format..I have not looked at them in
depth or compared them to the printed manuals (still in the mail), but they
look good so far.
You forgot:
Advantages:
4. Watcom still provides free tech support, Microsoft, Borland, and Symantec
charge $$$ just to tell you that they already know about the bug and
really don't care about your problems, the other standard answer is that
it is your bug not theirs and it is not their job to debug your code.
Rainer Deyke
at all possible to install different parts to different drives? I use
two external hard drives that are divided into 32 Mb partions, due to
very old drivers.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| "I don't work for HP, nor for anyone else, and if I did |
| I wouldn't speak for them." |
| Rainer Deyke - rai...@mdddhd.fc.hp.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Michael D. Ketchen
>
>The only drawback I have found from Watcom is the compile time which is
>at least two to four times longer than Symantec.
Of course, this is because Watcom does two to four times the optimization
that Symantec (or Borland or Microsoft, for that matter) does. Watcom 10
finally supports precompiled headers, so speed may improve a bit.
>You forgot:
>Advantages:
>4. Watcom still provides free tech support, Microsoft, Borland, and Symantec
>charge $$$ just to tell you that they already know about the bug and
>really don't care about your problems, the other standard answer is that
>it is your bug not theirs and it is not their job to debug your code.
4a. And Watcom will actually FIX the bug! (Imagine that.)
- Mike
Michael D. Ketchen
Rainer Deyke <rai...@mdddhd.fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Question: Will Watcom C 10 work if not installed on drive C:? Is it
>at all possible to install different parts to different drives? I use
>two external hard drives that are divided into 32 Mb partions, due to
>very old drivers.
You should be able to install it to any drive, but unless they've changed
the way the compiler/tools work, the whole thing has to be in one sub-
directory. What you could do is pre-create at least part of the directory
structure and then use JOIN to fill in some directories from other drives.
(Likely candidates are BIN, BINW, and/or LIB386.) Note that this is based
on 9.5 info (we don't have 10.0 yet :-( ), but they haven't changed the
layout since 7.0 (and possibly earlier).
- Mike
Rainer Deyke
: You get the manuals in Windows Help format..I have not looked at them in
: depth or compared them to the printed manuals (still in the mail), but they
: look good so far.
Is it possible at all to view the manuals from DOS? I *hate* Windows.
George Feamster
: Scott E. Welch (swe...@nmsu.edu) wrote:
: : You get the manuals in Windows Help format..I have not looked at them in
: : depth or compared them to the printed manuals (still in the mail), but they
: : look good so far.
: Is it possible at all to view the manuals from DOS? I *hate* Windows.
There is a dos help viewer that comes with it.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
George Feamster @ InfiNet located at Norfolk, Va
Tom Freedy
Tom Freedy
to...@icebox.iceonline.com
tr...@neuromancer.tamu.edu
: If you do not need more than 32MB, do not buy the full blown extender.
Actually, there are a few more things to thing about. If you do any interrupt
hooking you might want to consider the professional version. DOS4GW supports
passups for interrupt 0x08 through 0x21 (possible higher, they also support
passups on int 0x33, the mouse). Anyway, this allows an interrupt thrown in
real mode to call a prot mode function. If you plan on hooking any other
interrupts you really need the proffesional version. Also, be able to bind
the extender to the app is a massive plus.
: You can buy a Mitusumi double speed CD-ROM for $150. You can get a single
: speed for $99.
Get the double speed... For your own sanity!
: Watcom's video libraries cover many many many more modes than Borland's BGI.
Watcom also provides an example on there BBS of PF video access. Essentially
you make your VGA/SVGA card look like a linear buffer. When you access a
pixel that is out of bounds, you throw a page fault and the PF handler swaps
the page out for you. Its slimy, but it will speed up your code because you
dont have to check your page everytime you write. (For you pessimist, I real
ize a PF takes a while to execute, but it's much speeder than doing a check
every damn time)... Oh please note that VESA calls are not passed up! You have
to use DPMI simulate real mode interrupt (Function 0x0300) to get all the
features of VESA.
: The only drawback I have found from Watcom is the compile time which is
: at least two to four times longer than Symantec.
Users generally are more thankful when you do the waiting... Watcom's opts
are good. Just setup a good size cache and you won't really notice it.
--
-------------------------------------------------
________ ___ | Michael Traffanstead (Traff!)
| | |---| |
| Atomic | |---| | tr...@neuromancer.tamu.edu
| | |--o| | tr...@atomic.com
| Games! | |-- | |------------------------------
|__ __| | | | Swim.Bike.Run . *
|__| | | | -==/ -/\
------ |___| | \__/\()...()Y() ... //
-------------------------------------------------
These are my views... wait, no... well, maybe...
-------------------------------------------------
Chrons Otto
>: Watcom's video libraries cover many many many more modes than Borland's BGI.
>Watcom also provides an example on there BBS of PF video access. Essentially
>you make your VGA/SVGA card look like a linear buffer. When you access a
>pixel that is out of bounds, you throw a page fault and the PF handler swaps
>the page out for you. Its slimy, but it will speed up your code because you
>dont have to check your page everytime you write. (For you pessimist, I real
>ize a PF takes a while to execute, but it's much speeder than doing a check
>every damn time)...
Heh, actually that system is programmed by ME and it has nothing to with
Watcom, I just uploaded it there so that people could use it (as Watcom
nor Rational Systems provide none such feature). I have also optimized
it a bit so the page fault doesn't take as much as it used to... I'll
upload a new version when I have it supporting more video cards and maybe
also VESA.
--
Otto Chrons (otto....@cc.tut.fi)
Woman, a great program, with no documentation