From: Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: WARNING: DOS is about to die.
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:47:43 -0700
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <37D46EBF.22AAC1C4@hmc.edu>
References: <7quo1t$94k$1 AT solomon DOT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu> <37D2ECE3 DOT 9BB2B63E AT unb DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.st.hmc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 936668869 92124 134.173.45.219 (7 Sep 1999 01:47:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT nntp1 DOT interworld DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 1999 01:47:49 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12pre4 i586)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Endlisnis wrote:
> 
> Damian Yerrick wrote:
> 
> > RUMOR that may have quite a bit of fact to it:
> >
> > Windows Millennium is Micr0$oft's last 9x kernel based Windows version. I
> > have heard rumors that Micr0$oft will be switching to an NT kernel with its
> > inferior DOS box. So how will DOS tools such as DJGPP, Allegro, etc.
> > continue to survive?
> 
> Well, DJGPP does work on NT.  It doesn't have LFN support, and it can't use
> SVGA graphics modes.  And I find it very annoying how slow the screen-updates
> are on an NT machine running something like RHIDE.  (it's no fault of the
> program, it's NT waiting too long).
> 
>     Either way, the 64-bit intel chips will go mass-market in late 2000/early
> 2001.  And many other companies will follow suite, so I expect a 64-bit version
> of GCC will be born. 

"Be born"?  Seen an Alpha lately?  Guess what compiler it uses?

Incidentally, I have heard that various people working under temporary
NDA's are already porting GCC to the Merced, so when the Merced comes
out, GCC may already work on it.

> Word from Microsoft is that they will not be able to get
> a 64-bit version of Windows out until ~2003, and it will be a complete re-write
> (because of the large penalty for executing 32-bit code on the Merced
> processor).

"Complete rewrite" sounds unlikely to me.  There is already NT for the
Alpha, and I doubt it was a complete rewrite.

The 32-bit code can be got rid of just by recompiling, and I doubt the
architecture differences require *that* much work.  But I suppose it's
possible that Microsoft's code is so screwed up that it really is
necessary...

-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu