From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:52:22 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca To: Roger Ivie cc: OPENDOS AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Subject: Re: [opendos] Was: A more ordered fixlist Now: Memory mapped video is cool? In-Reply-To: <01IEWDYXZORS90TL6Z@cc.usu.edu> Message-ID: Organization: Total disorganization. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Precedence: bulk On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Roger Ivie wrote: > Iam 'DrDebug' Day wrote: > >In article , > >mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca writes > >>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Ian 'DrDebug' Day wrote: > >> > >>> One of the first things I will do is Direct screen writes, regardless of > >>> portability. Who gives a s***, I want it fast on my PC... ;-) > > I, for one, give a s***. First, it won't work on the VT52 I have hanging > off my serial port. Second, When I use direct writes on my PC, it reads video memory and sends it down the wire to my remote PC just fine. Sometimes it is a little gittery but it works great. > it won't work on embedded systems which use a > serial console instead of a video board. Why the f*** should I have to design > video and a keyboard interface into a black box that sits on an airplane and > logs chatter between the avionics boxes? It's just a pain to have to lug > around a monitor and a keyboard just because the thing runs DOS. Hey! Calm down! #1) Are you saying that you use COMMAND.COM on those little black boxes on airplanes? I personnally think that this is NOT a good enough reason for every PC user to NOT get direct video access. I mean the number of black box users to PC users with a real keyboard and a real video card and real monitor are about 10000000/1. Sorry. #2) What we were suggesting was to ADD support for direct screen writes to existing OpenDOS programs (primarily COMMAND.COM). How does this effect you? It doesn't. There will no doubt be a command line switch or a config file to enable direct screen writes. Judgeing by the number of people interested in OpenDOS, direct screen writes WILL become a reality. Judging by your swearing above, it sounds like you are just out to start a flame war. Sorry, I won't oblige. I'm just stating the facts as I see them. > Fundamentally, memory-mapped video sucks. It is not as useful or as flexible > as a good old serial port. About the only thing it's good for is drawing > pretty pictures on the screen. That *ENTIRELY* depends on your applications. I think that serial based video would really suck in any graphical applications, video games, GUI's, and countless other graphical applications. Also, I paid $3000 for this machine, and it had damned well be FAST! If you want it slow, then type COMMAND.COM /REALLY_SLOW_JUST_FOR_ROGER. I'll type COMMAND.COM /FAST_FOR_EVERY_PC_USER_BESIDES_ROGER > > Exactly! Two things have always bugged me: > > > > 1) No matter how fast machines get, they always take f***ing ages to > > boot! > > Run CP/M some time. Push the reset button and here comes your A> prompt. > No f***ing ages to boot. Yeah, good arguement. Try running ANY program on my entire hard drive in CP/M. Hey, lets all throw our computers in the garbage, and use commodore 64's! They come on with a prompt instantly. Hey what a great idea Roger! Come on, come into this century. Honestly I think you just replied to start a flame war. > > 2) No matter how fast machines get, DOS can only manage to do a DIR at > > 8088 crawl speed....... > > By the way, there are (or at least used to be) some really good fast console > drivers. FANSI Console, for example, is blazing fast and still does ANSI > terminal emulation. Who needs an ANSI driver in DOS nowadays? Keyboard redefinition can be done via 4DOS and many other programs, screen resizing can also be done via many other programs (I've even written some), color text can be done via 4DOS, and many other programs. Regardless of which methods I use, I still don't have any problems sending my programs down a serial wire so I don't see the argument here. If you care to see what I mean, feel free to telnet to my computer and run a DOS session in DOSemu. I'll set up an account for you if you like. > > Ah, sudden thought (I get those sometimes), perhaps it's a conspiracy by > > Microsoft to point to the fact that DOS is old and out-dated, and we > > should be using Windows.... So, come on guys; let's make OpenDOS > > something to reckon with, then we can close Windows for good. > > I would also like to make OpenDOS something to reckon with. It would be > wonderful to be able to build custom embedded PCs without paying a king's > ransom to get a BIOS, for example. Sure, there are many uses for OpenDOS, and many uses for embedded systems, however I don't see any problems with having the best of both worlds. Why do you? Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris Computer Consultant | My webpage has moved and my address has changed. My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca RHIDE: Current version 1.10