X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	skeptic <skeptic AT privacy DOT net>
Organization:	Fedora Core 2
Subject:	Re: DJGPP Usage
Date:	Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:25:40 -0400
User-Agent:	Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Message-ID:	<pan.2004.08.25.18.25.38.58157@privacy.net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<5 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20040822163549 DOT 00bb3868 AT postoffice DOT swbell DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Cache-Post-Path:	web.velocity.net!unknown AT 65-120-101-181 DOT velocity DOT net
X-Cache:	nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Lines:	51
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT newshosting DOT com
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:36:35 -0500, HDL-MikeFriedrichs wrote:

> List,
> 
> I'm embarking on a new project, with some inquiries.
> 
> This project communicates with an embedded controller through a UART, using 
> RS485.
> 
> The method of default is using WIN32API with win2000 or XP.  The code size 
> created by this method gets quite large.  The most straight forward means 
> is by using DOS[extended] because of the direct control of I/O ports and 
> large file sizes.
> 
> DOS, by definition of many newer programmers seems to be the Dinosaur, 
> meaning that's the old way.  So, why would a person prefer WIN32API 
> programming over DOS, which has much more direct control of I/O ports?
> 
> Just an inquiring mind!
> 
> -----
> MikeF

People who don't use MS-DOS are the "dummies" in my opinion.
I not only use DOS alot around here, I have DOS-Networking
(using 3Com and Netgear FA-311's) and it all works just fine and dandy!

When it comes to deleting LARGE files of directories with numerous large
files, a DOS-shell in windows is THE ONLY WAY to properly remove so much
bulk!  Try doing it with Windows file-explorer and what happens in Win9x ?
It just sits there for LONG PERIOD OF TIME, and if you are lucky
eventually returns control back...  what a joke!
XP has the same flaws that Win98/SE has... what a pathetic joke.
You could not pay me $1 million to use XP every hour.

I use 4-Dos (which is now soon to be FREE!)
Numerous "Dos-enhancers" TSR's/etc.
I use DJGPP 32-Bit compiler (supports LFN under Win 9x and is FAST!)
I use Borland 5.0 and BCB 3.0 Pro for Windows console and GUI apps.
Occasionally I might even use ms visual c 1.52c (QC 2.5's big brother)

Long live DOS, Win 95 (doesn't require ie),
 and Win 98 LITE! (removes ms proprietary components and ie).

Btw: there is interest in PC-BASED controllers and embedded systems
  BECAUSE they offer greater flexibility, and dedicate the machine to
  a specific task, which means you can sometimes get away with using
  older (widely available) PC's which are cheap as can be these days!
  If you are fortunate to have the programmer of the PC-BASED controller
  you are using on hand, then you have the advantage!

- Raw text -