[IBM Subtitling Program - ZeroG] Read this if you want to get it...
Chao Chen
venice.tcp.com
\incoming\zerogv1.zip
FTP over and do a "bin", "cd incoming", and "get zerogv1.zip". Unzip it
with the latest version of PKUNZIP.
Now, with that out of the way, here are a few comments:
1) If you want to get a PC genloc to use with the program, get the
GVP G-Lock VGA+ genloc. Don't ask me where you should get it. Look
around, ask around. Do something useful for a change.
2) The software is V1.0 BETA. There are bugs in the program. Use
at your own risk. Don't ask me when the next version will be released.
I don't know.
3) You should have some extended memory to run with this program. 4 megs
is a good number. Also, you should have at least a 486-33 to do
decent subtitles. The font draw speed is too slow with anything less.
4) The software is unsupported and comes as is. Don't come asking me
with questions. I'll tell you to go away. I've convienced the author
of the program to share it with people on the net. This is about
as much work as I do.
5) Play around with the program. There are many sample scripts that
I and others have done to show what this program can do. These sample
scripts should allow any smart person to figure out the ins/outs of the
program. Experiment and try things out. If you can't figure it out,
then don't use the program.
Now that the program is on a FTP site, people, stop bugging me about it.
Chao
Dave Brown
[subtitling program for PCs]
> 3) You should have some extended memory to run with this program. 4 megs
> is a good number. Also, you should have at least a 486-33 to do
> decent subtitles. The font draw speed is too slow with anything less.
Eh?!?!! Nani?!?!
4 MEGABYTES?!?!
A 486-33?!!
To put LETTERS on the SCREEN?!
Excuse me, that bit of code *REALLY* *BADLY* needs a rewrite if you
need that kind of system just to bung writing on the screen.
For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
with a meg of RAM apiece and do your subbing with them, with the other
9 as backup in case the first dies.
--Dave "And the one meg would be more than plenty" Brown
Brian Reynolds
>For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
I think the purpose of this program is for people who ALREADY have an IBM,
and do not plan on buying one just for subtitling. And as someone earlier
mentioned (I don't know who, maybe I am amagining it) that most anime fans are
in college. Once in college, you need to have a decent machine anyway, so the
system requirements are just fine IMO. I think that you are just complaining cause
you don't have the requirements personally.
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Brian Reynolds Vice President, Virginia Tech |
| brre...@vt.edu Electronic Gaming Society |
| brre...@mail.vt.edu Otaku at heart. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." |
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Brian Reynolds
>I've sent ZeroG V1.0 Beta to:
>
>venice.tcp.com
>\incoming\zerogv1.zip
>
>FTP over and do a "bin", "cd incoming", and "get zerogv1.zip". Unzip it
Has anyone else had trouble locating this program?
David Boeren
: Has anyone else had trouble locating this program?
You can't see it in the directory, that's the 'protection' for getting
new files which aren't checked yet. But you can still get it blind if you
know the complete filename. Try again, and don't worry about not seeing it.
As for the system requirements: I'm not sure about this. The program uses
Borland's BGI for graphics, which is notoriously slow. By re-writing the
graphics the program could be sped up greatly in that respect. My guess
is that they used BGI because their fonts are in a format which isn't
documented, so they couldn't decode them themselves. As for the rest, I
don't have source code, so I don't know what they might be doing with the
memory. But perhaps it will subtitle 30 minute episodes with less RAM,
since there is less text.
Dave Brown
> In article <1994112915...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Dave Brown <dbr...@armf18.dow.on.doe.CA> says:
> >For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
> I think the purpose of this program is for people who ALREADY have
> an IBM, and do not plan on buying one just for subtitling.
Aha, that's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say
that it's a pretty sad program that requires 4M of RAM and a 486 just
to put bloody text on the screen. That's hardly something that, as a
programmer, I find a terribly challenging task. In fact, I'd be
surprised if a program I wrote took up more than, oh, 128K (including
a font).
> And as someone earlier mentioned (I don't know who, maybe I am
> imagining it) that most anime fans are in college. Once in college,
> you need to have a decent machine anyway, so the system requirements
> are just fine IMO.
ROFL!!!!
Once in college, you can make do with a dumb terminal and a modem, in
general. At least, at the ones I know of. I still have the machine I
had in high school--an ancient Amiga 500 (beefed up, though--it has 3M
or RAM :-) )--and it still serves my purposes quite nicely. And if I
wanted to use it for subtitling work, there's lots of software I could
use (and I wouldn't have to expand my memory for it, either).
> I think that you are just complaining cause you don't have the
> requirements personally.
Whoah, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm just annoyed at the
accepted standard that says that 486-33 w/ 4M RAM requirements are
acceptable for a subtitling utility.
--Dave
Gordon Waters
>In <3bekpr$f3g$1...@usenet.pa.dec.com>, ch...@oleum.zso.dec.com (Chao Chen) said:
>[subtitling program for PCs]
>4 MEGABYTES?!?!
>A 486-33?!!
What's so unusual about this? This is about the _standard minimum_
configuratuion for a store-bought computer these days...
>To put LETTERS on the SCREEN?!
Yeah, so you don't have to load scripts piece-meal like you oftentimes
have to do on Amigas...
>Excuse me, that bit of code *REALLY* *BADLY* needs a rewrite if you
>need that kind of system just to bung writing on the screen.
For it to _look good_. It takes a fairly large amount of memory for
JACOsub to use the more exotic fonts, too... Also, with this 486, the
titles should just *pop onto* the screen, no visible drawing time.
>For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
>with a meg of RAM apiece and do your subbing with them, with the other
>9 as backup in case the first dies.
Yeah, mabye, but TRY to find 10 Amiga 500's, or 10 of any kind of AMiga's
now... it ain't easy! I know, I have people asking for AMiga parts all
the time, and I have to frequently send them away emptyhanded at work...
Also, you can get this 486-33/4M setup for about $750 these days... so it
really isn't THAT extravagent...
Unfortunately, unless Commodore Germany or someone does something really
fast, there probably won't be anymore Amigas in the US... so the fans
here really do probably have the right idea- make a program to use the
most _contemporary_ hardware, that you can get literally _anywhere_ even
though it is not as optimized for the task as the AMiga (hence the big
code required...)
>--Dave "And the one meg would be more than plenty" Brown
Well, if you don't mind loading lots of little script pieces, one at at
time... it does work with 1 meg, it just isn't as convenient that way...
Regards,
Gordon.
--
///THE CODE NAME IS / To Join DP Mail.List:lios!lovely-an...@cs.ubc.ca
//LOVELY ANGEL... // ~//~~\\ // //~\\ ~~//~ \\ / //~\\ /|| // //~\\
/Gordon Waters //// // // // //__// // \\/ //__// /--|| // //__//
gwa...@crl.com // _//__// // // \\ // // // / || // // \\
Craig Whittington
>4 MEGABYTES?!?!
>A 486-33?!!
>To put LETTERS on the SCREEN?!
>Excuse me, that bit of code *REALLY* *BADLY* needs a rewrite if you
>need that kind of system just to bung writing on the screen.
>
I've done my subbing with Zero-G for a while now, and know a little bit
about the program. Zero-G doesn't buffer screens like JACOsub. This
means that the text is being generated on the fly. Understandably this
slows thing downs and thus it requires a 486DX to bring up the subs without
any apparent generating effect. There is no doubt that, more efficient code
could be written, and if I had the time, I'd do it myself. From what I
understand, Zero-G was created in under a month, and for that amount of
time, it is a great subtitler. There are even some options I wish
JACOsub included. On top of this, there are very few bugs...Not bad for
a beta version I'd say. In any case, if the requirements are too steep,
write your own, don't sit here and complain that this one should have
been done differently.
>For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
>with a meg of RAM apiece and do your subbing with them, with the other
>9 as backup in case the first dies.
>
For me it was a choice between $700 for a new Amiga system with SuperGen
or $300 for a G-Lock VGA+ on my existing IBM(486DX2-66). Since the
output is nearly identical, it was an obvious choice.
***************************************************************************
* Craig Whittington - a...@tiamat.umd.umich.edu * |=======| *
* IRC : SonGohan * /*/ *
* President: The Saiya-jin Warriors * Dragonball /*/ *
* & Saiya-jin Productions * /*/ *
* Member : DBZ Liberation Front & Gokuraku * |========| *
***************************************************************************
Chao Chen
it made it there ok. You must have typed something wrong or else the ftp
site manager moved it someplace else.
Chao
Brian Reynolds (brre...@mail.vt.edu) wrote:
Gerald Leung
Dave Brown <ani...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
He said "think."
A 486 is NOT the accepted standard. I hear a lot of people
keep telling me that to subtitle one should just get an Amiga.
As far as I know (and that's not a fantastic amount), there are
few to no subtitling programs for an IBM. Yet, when I read about
this particular one, you seemed to be upset and claimed that a
486 is a standard. Whatever the standard is, I'm pretty sure
that 486s are not it.
I can understand why you'd think 4 megs of RAM would sound steep.
At first glance, I thought so, too, especially just for, as you
said, putting text on a screen.
But IBMs nowadays regularly
chew up the RAM immediately for all sorts of unknown reasons.
DOS will take up most of the base memory (which is only 640K at
best) or at least enough to make other programs that want to use
that 640K for themselves complain. Then you get to play the fun
game of reallocating your memory to the extended memory locations
which practically aren't memory at all, as far as I can tell.
Every successive version of DOS seems to be using up more and more
memory for no apparent better reason than the previous one. The
real stupid fixes you can get are when the programs aren't written
well. For example, the program might require a certain substantial
amount of the base 640K to run, especially to run at an optimum
speed for say action games or something. However you have a bunch of
memory resident thingies running on that space that you would need
to unload, like the mouse programs and all the accompanying mouse
helping programs. Of course, the program might require the use of
the mouse for its otherwise complicated interface. In the end,
you may have relocated all of your memory resident programs to
ridiculous places causing other echoing problems and making your original
program still run at half of what it supposed to be running at.
You'd also have a meg of extended memory not being used or something.
Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
GL
Gerald "I don't WANT to learn about computers, I just want to
get my game to run!" Leung
Brian Reynolds
>Aha, that's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say
>that it's a pretty sad program that requires 4M of RAM and a 486 just
>to put bloody text on the screen. That's hardly something that, as a
Oh. My fault. I have not tried writing a subtitling program, so I do not
know how much RAM is, or should be, needed.
>Once in college, you can make do with a dumb terminal and a modem, in
>general. At least, at the ones I know of.
Actually, you may be right. It is just that I go to VaTech, where computers,
good ones at that, are everywhere. Not only that, but the town I live in has
one of the highest computer/person rates in the country.
>Whoah, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm just annoyed at the
>accepted standard that says that 486-33 w/ 4M RAM requirements are
Who knows, maybe he just didn't feel like testing every type of machine,
and decided to go with an accepted standard. I am just speculating though.
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Brian Reynolds Vice President, Virginia Tech
brre...@vt.edu Electronic Gaming Society
brre...@mail.vt.edu Otaku at heart.
Albert Wong
>
>Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
>memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
>use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
>
Judging from Gerald's above statement, I'd just as well discount his last post
becuase he knows not what he speaks.
Orange Road Addict
Chao Chen <ch...@oleum.zso.dec.com> wrote:
>It should be there. After I uploaded it, I did a download just to make sure
>it made it there ok. You must have typed something wrong or else the ftp
>site manager moved it someplace else.
>
>Chao
The file has now been moved to
/pub/anime-manga/new
where it will remain until itis moved under /pub/anime-manga/software
directory which will be sometime after a week from today
(the file is still called 'zerog1v.zip')
Cheers,
MArijan
Chao Chen
: Aha, that's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say
: that it's a pretty sad program that requires 4M of RAM and a 486 just
: to put bloody text on the screen. That's hardly something that, as a
: programmer, I find a terribly challenging task. In fact, I'd be
: surprised if a program I wrote took up more than, oh, 128K (including
: a font).
You know, people like you really piss me off. You complain a lot about
other people's work while haven't really done anything yourself. No
wonder my friend was very relutant to release this program to the general
public. It's because of people like you. Let me ask you a few things:
1) Have you actually looked at the program, the sample scripts, and
what it can do before you complained about the 4megs and the other
requirements?
2) I never said 4megs was required. I recommended 4 megs. The program
runs with 640k. The rest of memory is used for font cache if you use
a lot of different fonts in the scripts. I usually use 3 to 4 different
fonts in a single script. The program preloads all fonts to extended
memory.
3) What have you done to contribute to subtitling on the PC? So far,
all I have heard from you is that you can write one in 128k. So,
have you actually written one? Have you written anything at all?
Go ahead and write one to show me you can do better. Otherwise,
why should I or anyone else listen to your whining?
4) Subtitling requires a lot of things just than putting "bloody text
on the screen". If you think that's all a subtitling program has
to do, then you obviously haven't done a lot of subtitling and don't
know much. Let me ask you, just how much subtitling have you done?
Of the timed scripts included in the ZeroG package, over 90% of them
I personally reworked for ZeroG.
: wanted to use it for subtitling work, there's lots of software I could
: use (and I wouldn't have to expand my memory for it, either).
Fine, go ahead and use your own subtitling software. You don't have
to use ZeroG.
: Whoah, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm just annoyed at the
: accepted standard that says that 486-33 w/ 4M RAM requirements are
: acceptable for a subtitling utility.
Fine. Write one that's better than ZeroG and show me you can do better
then. Otherwise, you can be as annoyed as you want and no one will
really care.
You know, I probably have seen more whinners and complainers on r.a.a.
than any other newsgroup. Those who whine and compalin usually haven't
done much of *anything* to contribute to their cause. At least my freind
and I have gotten this subtitler onto the net for the general public's
use for the PC when there were no subtitling program before (for PC).
Chao
Chao Chen
: A 486 is NOT the accepted standard. I hear a lot of people
: keep telling me that to subtitle one should just get an Amiga.
What he means is that a 486-33 w/4meg of memory is a standard *PC*
configuration that most stores now sell as a home/family computer
(at least that's what most stores push). He doesn't mean
it's a *subtitling* standard.
Currently, Amigas are still the subtitling standard mostly due
to JACOsub. Wait one more year and systems will be hard enough
to find and enough hardware vendors will have jumped ship that
Amigas will no longer be viable for subtitling. For the Amiga
die-hards, let me just ask you this. Start counting how many
Commodore/Amiga magazines are left near the end of the next year.
You'll understand what I mean then.
: DOS will take up most of the base memory (which is only 640K at
: best) or at least enough to make other programs that want to use
: that 640K for themselves complain. Then you get to play the fun
: game of reallocating your memory to the extended memory locations
: which practically aren't memory at all, as far as I can tell.
DOS does not take up most of the 640k. It takes up very little
compare to programs.
Extended memory *is* memory. I don't know what gave you the
idea that it's not. The problem lies mainly how to get to it.
DOS, which runs in the real mode on x86 CPUs, can really only
address up to 1meg of memory in that real mode. So, they have
to invent funky ways to access memory beyond the 1 meg
which involves switching the CPU in/out of certain modes or use
some type of page switching. It's nasty enough that I know I never
want to program in DOS. Give me a flat memory structure any day.
: Every successive version of DOS seems to be using up more and more
: memory for no apparent better reason than the previous one. The
Every successive version of DOS they add more features to it. More
features means more code. More code means it eats up more of your
RAM. Whether you use those features or not is entirely up to you.
: memory resident thingies running on that space that you would need
They are called TSRs.
: Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
: memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
: use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
Windows is layered on top of DOS. It basically has many of the limitations
that DOS has. Windows 95 and Windows NT does away with DOS and runs
in a flat memory structure. Both OS put the CPU into their "virtual" mode
and let you party with the RAM without having to worry about page switching,
segment, or the other garbage from the 8086 days.
For someone with a "cs" address out of Berkeley, you sure don't know much
about PCs. Don't tell me, an Unix die-hard right?
I'll be glad when they get rid of DOS. What a joke to call that thing an
operating system.
Chao
Iskandar Taib
Dave Brown <ani...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>Eh?!?!! Nani?!?!
>
>4 MEGABYTES?!?!
>
>A 486-33?!!
>For the money to get that kind of setup, you could buy ten Amiga 500s
>with a meg of RAM apiece and do your subbing with them, with the other
>9 as backup in case the first dies.
Checked PC prices lately?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Chao Chen
: in a flat memory structure. Both OS put the CPU into their "virtual" mode
Arrgh, not "virtual" mode. It's "protected" mode. Stupid fingers...
Chao
Iskandar Taib
Gerald Leung <ger...@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>A 486 is NOT the accepted standard. I hear a lot of people
>keep telling me that to subtitle one should just get an Amiga.
It is now. Try to find something slower in stores.
(For that matter try finding an Amiga in a store)
4 Megs of RAM is the minimum you can buy systems with these days. Most
come with 8.
>But IBMs nowadays regularly
>chew up the RAM immediately for all sorts of unknown reasons.
>DOS will take up most of the base memory (which is only 640K at
>best) or at least enough to make other programs that want to use
>that 640K for themselves complain.
Eh? Try typing "mem" at the C prompt sometime. DOS actually takes up
the least amount of RAM of any contemporary operating system. Thats
because it has the least overhead. Of course, it doesn't have much in
the way of features either. Its just a shell, a filesystem and a
program loader.
>Then you get to play the fun
>game of reallocating your memory to the extended memory locations
>which practically aren't memory at all, as far as I can tell.
This comes from the 640K limit that most DOS programs operate under.
Keep reading.
>Every successive version of DOS seems to be using up more and more
>memory for no apparent better reason than the previous one.
Ever hear of DOS 5 and 6? They actually take up less of the lower 640K
than DOS 4. Dos 6 is better at leaving you with more memory than DOS
5.
>The
>real stupid fixes you can get are when the programs aren't written
>well. For example, the program might require a certain substantial
>amount of the base 640K to run, especially to run at an optimum
>speed for say action games or something. However you have a bunch of
>memory resident thingies running on that space that you would need
>to unload, like the mouse programs and all the accompanying mouse
>helping programs. Of course, the program might require the use of
>the mouse for its otherwise complicated interface. In the end,
>you may have relocated all of your memory resident programs to
>ridiculous places causing other echoing problems and making your original
>program still run at half of what it supposed to be running at.
>You'd also have a meg of extended memory not being used or something.
This is why you run Windows and Windows apps. Chuck the DOS apps out
the window and no more conventional memory prolems.
>Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
>memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
>use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
*Groan*
Never used Windows I see. Besides getting rid of the 640K limit
(assuming you just use Windows apps, like me) you can run more than
one app at a time (even though its not preemptive multitasking, which
will come with Win 95 and Windows NT). It also provides printing and
display services to the applications. No, it has a ways to go but its
getting there. Try running a Web server and FTP, Telnet and News
clients, the same time you're running something like Word 6 and Excel.
Try that in DOS. Windows might not be great, but its better than plain
old DOS.
Gerald Leung
>ger...@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Gerald Leung) wrote:
Maybe . . . I DID mention that I don't know that much.
What I said is merely from my own experiences. I'm not any kind of
genius in these matters nor do I ever claim to be. It's just that
for what I use Windows and DOS for, Windows doesn't seem to make an appreciable
difference for me. In fact, it seems very noticeable to me that it is less
efficient for what I want.
Also, if you know more than me, I welcome you to explain. I'm not
against learning more than I already know. ^_^
GL
Gerald "He who knows everything . . .
. . . probably has a big head." Leung
Brian Reynolds
>done much of *anything* to contribute to their cause. At least my freind
>and I have gotten this subtitler onto the net for the general public's
>use for the PC when there were no subtitling program before (for PC).
>Chao
A-MEN!!! As far as I have seen, this is the *ONLY* IBM subtitling program
out there for public consumtion. I would just like to say...
3 CHEERS FOR CHAO AND ..uh.. ..um.. WHOEVER WROTE THE
PROGRAM ZERO-G ! ! !
Btw, I did get hold of the program, thanks to the help of David Boeren.
I use a windows mouse driven FTP program, and just today figured out there
was an actual tiny box for typing commands. From what I have seen so far
(unfortunately with a Genlock card) this program looks VERY nice.
Tommy Hwang
<Is it me or is this thread becomming none-anime related in any way?>
>>: keep telling me that to subtitle one should just get an Amiga.
I hear that the BUGGED PENTIUM (it was anyway) will be the standard
by the end of this christmas season.
>>Windows is layered on top of DOS. It basically has many of the limitations
>>that DOS has.
And therefore technically not an operating system:-)
>>Windows 95 and Windows NT does away with DOS and runs
>>in a flat memory structure.
>
>Yes . . . I have NT. As far as I can see, the standalone OS idea is
>pure garbage. It makes it even harder and longer to switch between
>Windows and DOS.
Why??? I have NT too. True it is not great (or good for that
matter), but I do not see major diffuculties - but then... I only
have NT setup inmy system.
>I know enough about PCs to physically put one together if I had the parts,
>then install all the software I had (that's DOS, Windows, any Windows
>programs, Unix command set that I use only for the "ls" listing command,
>mouse related material, emm, etc.) to the point of it being as good as
>the machines I use at home and up in my room here.
??? Learn more about UNIX... It runs in more platforms than
anything else and it is very good (though cryptic). And if you do not
like CLI, then get UNIXWARE, by novell . I personally do not use it
only because Lightwave will
not be supported under UNIX, but only NT for Intel,MIPS,AXP; and
Workbench.
Dave Brown
[a whole bunch of stuff which basically sums up as "MS/DOS was badly
designed, which I'm sure nobody argues with]
> Gerald "I don't WANT to learn about computers, I just want to
> get my game to run!" Leung
In MS/DOS 6, I find that holding down the right Shift key often helps.
You have lots of memory left over :-) .
--Dave
Dave Brown
> ger...@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Gerald Leung) wrote:
> >Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
> >memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
> >use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
>
> Judging from Gerald's above statement, I'd just as well discount his
> last post becuase he knows not what he speaks.
Very true. Windows makes the computer able to do *less* than it could
with that silly little bootstrap loader :-) . DOS will, at least, get
the hell out of the programmer's way, but Windows is like this short-
tempered elephant you have to placate every few minutes, otherwise it
explodes.
On the PC in my office, I'm trying out TSX-32/Lite instead of DOS or
Windows. Then I'm going to give Linux a shot. At home, I own no PCs.
I prefer machines that weren't apparently designed by a team of
drunken monkeys.
If only you could get a decent OS for a Mac....
--Dave
Brian Edmonds
> Also, if you know more than me, I welcome you to explain. I'm not
> against learning more than I already know. ^_^
Except, of course, Japanese...
--
Netscape no baka! /@_@\
Albert Wong
>What I said is merely from my own experiences. I'm not any kind of
>genius in these matters nor do I ever claim to be. It's just that
>for what I use Windows and DOS for, Windows doesn't seem to make an appreciable
>difference for me. In fact, it seems very noticeable to me that it is less
>efficient for what I want.
Well, yeah, if you just use your machine for cheap terminal, then yeah, I can see that Windows
or any other OS would be uneccessary overhead. ;)
Gerald Leung
>Gerald Leung <ger...@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Eh? Try typing "mem" at the C prompt sometime. DOS actually takes up
>the least amount of RAM of any contemporary operating system. Thats
>because it has the least overhead. Of course, it doesn't have much in
>the way of features either. Its just a shell, a filesystem and a
>program loader.
I've typed "mem" more times than I can remember trying to reallocate
setup stuff to places they don't belong ^_^. According to what it
told me, DOS didn't leave enough space in the 640K for a program
that wanted it (you would think a DOS program should work on DOS
with no problems).
>>Then you get to play the fun
>>game of reallocating your memory to the extended memory locations
>>which practically aren't memory at all, as far as I can tell.
>
>This comes from the 640K limit that most DOS programs operate under.
>Keep reading.
Is that DOS? or hardware? It always seemed like a hardware
problem (but then again, I never thought about looking into the
matter) . . .
>>Every successive version of DOS seems to be using up more and more
>>memory for no apparent better reason than the previous one.
>Ever hear of DOS 5 and 6? They actually take up less of the lower 640K
>than DOS 4. Dos 6 is better at leaving you with more memory than DOS
>5.
No..., after DOS 6, I still had to do constant housekeeping so
programs could work (it was just a LITTLE easier).
>This is why you run Windows and Windows apps. Chuck the DOS apps out
>the window and no more conventional memory prolems.
Are you saying don't use DOS apps? Or use them in Windows?
Almost all of the DOS apps, when I try to run them in Windows,
crash or have some kind of problems. I try to use Windows programs
versions when I can find them, but there are much more DOS apps.
>>Of course, there's also Windows which takes up as much extended
>>memory and base memory it can find, yet doesn't seem to be able to
>>use it to do anything more than DOS can do.
>*Groan*
>Never used Windows I see.
I've used Windows for the last 5 or 6 years, whichever it is.
>Besides getting rid of the 640K limit
>(assuming you just use Windows apps, like me) you can run more than
>one app at a time (even though its not preemptive multitasking, which
>will come with Win 95 and Windows NT). It also provides printing and
>display services to the applications.
Yeah, but that's not much when there aren't that many Windows apps.
I used PCs mostly to play games, still do. Windows isn't much when
all games for PCs come out on DOS first (and usually only). There
aren't that many Windows versions of games.
The only thing I've seen Windows give me is Word and Excel.
Programming, at least for me, is easier to do running the respective
programs in DOS. For example, I'd rather program in Pascal, say,
using the DOS version, rather than the Windows version (at least
the Windows versions I've seen).
>No, it has a ways to go but its
>getting there. Try running a Web server and FTP, Telnet and News
>clients, the same time you're running something like Word 6 and Excel.
>Try that in DOS. Windows might not be great, but its better than plain
>old DOS.
I've only seen it to be better for Word and Excel. Everything else
runs, and usually runs better, in DOS. Of course, I could be using
some VERY different things compared to what you're using.
GL
Gerald "He who knows everything . . .
. . . already did his homework and turned it in." Leung
Gerald Leung
>ger...@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Gerald Leung) said:
>[a whole bunch of stuff which basically sums up as "MS/DOS was badly
>designed, which I'm sure nobody argues with]
>> Gerald "I don't WANT to learn about computers, I just want to
>> get my game to run!" Leung
>In MS/DOS 6, I find that holding down the right Shift key often helps.
>You have lots of memory left over :-) .
One of my games actually told me that once! ^_^
I tried it, then I had to go through and reset my mouse to get it
to work (game wanted it). Also, it said that there was no extended
mem, so I had to rerig a boot up floppy with a config.sys that set
up emm386 and a few other things. Took me about a day to figure it
all out (well, I was also eating, watching TV, etc. ^_^).
GL
Gerald "He who knows everything . . .
. . . probably would have come up with better quotes
by now." Leung
Gerald Leung
>On the PC in my office, I'm trying out TSX-32/Lite instead of DOS or
>Windows. Then I'm going to give Linux a shot. At home, I own no PCs.
>I prefer machines that weren't apparently designed by a team of
>drunken monkeys.
What's Linux? I've seen the name a couple times, but other than that . . .
>If only you could get a decent OS for a Mac....
Well, someone told me that Apples are (at least originally) made from
cheap parts as a makeshift affordable computer (back in the days when
computers were still the size of a briefcase -- big briefcase).
Also, Macs are designed to be user-friendly. This fits some people,
but not me. However, there ARE a lot of very nice programs on the Mac
and there continue to be a lot more.
GL
Gerald "He who knows everything . . .
. . . knows that I should be working on my project right now." Leung
Gerald Leung
Tommy Hwang <thw...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
> I hear that the BUGGED PENTIUM (it was anyway) will be the standard
>by the end of this christmas season.
Last I heard, the Pentium was still bugged and they were working on the
problem. Has this changed yet?
>>>Windows 95 and Windows NT does away with DOS and runs
>>>in a flat memory structure.
>>Yes . . . I have NT. As far as I can see, the standalone OS idea is
>>pure garbage. It makes it even harder and longer to switch between
>>Windows and DOS.
> Why??? I have NT too. True it is not great (or good for that
>matter), but I do not see major diffuculties - but then... I only
>have NT setup inmy system.
I practically have to reboot my computer to get from DOS to Windows
(used to be able to just type "win").
It takes forever to switch between programs in its so called "multi-
tasking."
>>I know enough about PCs to physically put one together if I had the parts,
>>then install all the software I had (that's DOS, Windows, any Windows
>>programs, Unix command set that I use only for the "ls" listing command,
>>mouse related material, emm, etc.) to the point of it being as good as
>>the machines I use at home and up in my room here.
> ??? Learn more about UNIX... It runs in more platforms than
>anything else and it is very good (though cryptic). And if you do not
>like CLI, then get UNIXWARE, by novell . I personally do not use it
>only because Lightwave will
Last time we tried running Unix, the PCs still had problems handling
it. Has THIS changed? I'd love to be able to run Unix with better
results on the PC now. But can you run all your DOS games on it also?
THAT would be nice.
GL
Gerald "He who knows everything . . .
. . . knows that I'm posting way too much on this thread." Leung
Gerald Leung
>ger...@rohan.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Gerald Leung) wrote:
Hey, now! ^_^
Windows just doesn't run the games (there, I said it!) I want as well as
DOS does. I'm thinking of just getting rid of this NT stuff and putting
the old Windows 3.1 back on to just use Word and Excel.
GL
Gerald "Bad command or file name" Leung