• ### Announcements

#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Good old DOS

## Recommended Posts

What is wrong with old DOS? Is it its limited 64 K segments? Use DOS4G or any extender. What else could stoped DOS game development? ---DRIVERS--- No hardware manufacturer is now supporting DOS. All vendors target the Windows platform as if it were the BEST for games. Windows works in the background and monitors every single event in your system which undoubtly decreases performance significantly. My opinion is why targeting window based platforms where video and input resources are not your game''s. Setting OGL in Windows is totally dependent on system specific function calls (wgl????). I''m sure it would be very much easier in DOS. Do you agree with me guys? Thanks.

##### Share on other sites
On the list of reasons not to mourn DOS:
- near and far pointer hassles
- total lack of security
...

‘But truth's a menace, science a public danger.’ Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

##### Share on other sites
I was one of the biggest DOS advocates just a few years ago. Even today, I still launch a command prompt to copy files rather than dragging and dropping.

But come on, let it go. DOS is DEAD. It''s not going to come back....ever...

Microsoft should have a online funeral for MS-DOS so those that still cling to it can finally have a release.

borngamer

##### Share on other sites
...
-a horrible file system
-no driver layer
-practically non-existent memory management capabilities
-a useless UI

Personally, I like running more than one process at a time. YMMV.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by borngamer
Even today, I still launch a command prompt to copy files rather than dragging and dropping.

The console/terminal isn''t DOS, nor is DOS the console. I''ve always been a command prompt person, and I doubt I''ll stop being one any time soon .

##### Share on other sites
Weeelll Golly Gomer... I didn''t know that one.

No kidding.

##### Share on other sites
Programming for devices sucked and the soundcard was especially EVIL. You always had to ask the player what IRQ they were using, like they #$#$# knew.

Graphics were ok, given that is was 13H, but can you imagine the nightmare of trying to do today''s 3D stuff? File that under "Forget it, would not happen!"

##### Share on other sites
Hmmm, my DOS games that used glide on my old voodoo board looked pretty good (i.e. Grand Theft Auto)

##### Share on other sites

Well, it WOULD have been possible to handle the
driver thing in DOS.

A good example that this worked is VESA.

But those traitors who saw DOS dying jumped
on the windows train, instead of helping it :-)

But, far/near, lack of security, only in 16-bit mode, huh?
Ever tried 32-bit protected mode in DOS?

"Martree":
What do you mean by "horrible file system" ?
Is FAT32 SO much different?
Of course it''s better, but FAT worked too,
really don''t know what you mean by "horrible"

(programming DOS in 16 bit mode IS _horrible_

And there were some tries to make DOS multitasking
(well, not by M\$, I mean DR-DOS 7)

However, it was good if you could turn off multitasking
environtment, or start the computer in a non-mt environment,
when you want it, to get the maximum performance out of
your machine for a single program (game?), and, when you want to do work, in a convenient environment, just restart the computer with this.

It would be possible.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by borngamer
Weeelll Golly Gomer... I didn''t know that one. No kidding.

I didn''t mean to be insulting . It''s just that you said it right after you said "I was one of the biggest DOS advocates just a few years ago." Many people (in general) seem to think "text based console, it must be DOS"; it''s a sore point of mine. I''m sure you see them too .

##### Share on other sites
DOS is great, I write code for it all the time.

For my personal projects, I could care less which platform I use, so I use what I feel will be most suitable, and often that means DOS, simply because of its simplicity and speed.

Protected mode interfaces are wonderful, but the real problem with DOS still haunts you even there: It''s essentially a 16-bit OS. Every extender has its own way of doing thing. Personally, I program with DJGPP, so I end up using its go32 extender environment and DPMI services.

Even if you had a clean, standardized protected mode-only DOS-like OS, it wouldn''t do well all because it simply does not meet today''s needs.

It doesn''t matter to me, however. DOS serves me well and allows me to be productive without hassle. I see no reason yet for porting any of my tools over to Win32 any time soon. So for me, it isn''t really dead because it still serves its purpose quite well. If I must, I''ll write code for another platform, so what''s the big deal?

---
Bart

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Martee
...
-a horrible file system
-a useless UI

DOS uses the same file system as Windows 3.1/95/98/98SE/ME/XP.

The UI isn''t useless, because I get batched jobs done ten times faster in DOS.

its much faster to say copy *.zip c:\wherever, instead of futzing around, finding every zip file, then messing around with the GUI tree structure to find the right directory.

##### Share on other sites
DOS programming was just fun... Windows programming isn''t. But I don''t program in DOS because it''s so limiting (resource-wise). With the speed of computers today, who cares about a little extra overhead from an event driven system? Like anyone actually uses this speed. Everyone is creating 3D shooters with bad AI and physics with graphics that rely heavily on the graphics card rather than the cpu.

Sure, this isn''t true for all games but my point is that the hardware technology greatly exceeds the software technology. We haven''t had the one brave soul come forth with something that pushes the envelope. My poor GeForce3 is bored out of its mind. =(

If you wish you had the speed of DOS and the multitasking power of Windows combined, why not try Linux?

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Get Tranced!

##### Share on other sites
quote:

DOS uses the same file system as Windows 3.1/95/98/98SE/ME/XP.

The UI isn''t useless, because I get batched jobs done ten times faster in DOS.

Wasnt DOS always FAT16 where as from like Win95 B or whatever it was FAT32 and now NTFS is used (though not always) in XP?

But yeah I agree 100% command lines are very very powerful. Every program should know and love them. Even DOS''s command line was somewhat limited, it still is very useful. Now a *nix command line is even better and should be used whenever ever possible IMO.

##### Share on other sites
quote:

DOS uses the same file system as Windows 3.1/95/98/98SE/ME/XP.

The UI isn''t useless, because I get batched jobs done ten times faster in DOS.

Wasnt DOS always FAT16 where as from like Win95 B or whatever it was FAT32 and now NTFS is used (though not always) in XP?

But yeah I agree 100% command lines are very very powerful. Every program should know and love them. Even DOS''s command line was somewhat limited, it still is very useful. Now a *nix command line is even better and should be used whenever ever possible IMO.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ratman
Wasnt DOS always FAT16 where as from like Win95 B or whatever it was FAT32 and now NTFS is used (though not always) in XP?

Yep. That''s exactly my point. I''ll just add that NTFS (and HPFS) have been used since NT 3.1 ... and that I wouldn''t really call FAT32 much better than FAT16
quote:

But yeah I agree 100% command lines are very very powerful.

I agree completely. But DOS''s command prompt sucked compared to others, which is why I said it was useless

##### Share on other sites
UnshavenBastard wrote:

quote:
Ever tried 32-bit protected mode in DOS?

Yes, I downloaded Caldera''s DOS last year to install on a 486 that a friend gave me. But face it, DOS died with W95. Sure it worked great for games, but at that point it lost it''s usefulness as an operating system. And for those of us with longer memories, who might remember what computing on a 286 was like, DOS will always signify 16 bit. And most reference books on the subject define DOS this way as well. Thus my critique remains valid.

This isn''t to say that I don''t like using the command prompt. Console''s rock or they wouldn''t have build one for Quake!

Along these lines, I give my vote to DOS 5.0 as the quintessential DOS (I think that might make for a nice and trivial lounge topic. Anyone?).

‘But truth's a menace, science a public danger.’ Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

##### Share on other sites
PS. The topic started said "Good _old_ DOS", not "Good _new_ DOS"

‘But truth's a menace, science a public danger.’ Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

##### Share on other sites
I have to say that I still write DOS games, sure it isn''t multi-tasking, but very few types of games (ie puzzles) really work in a windowed environmant. No one playes Quake 3 in a tiny window while typing a book report now do they? I like it because it is simple, I really dislike DirectX programming. In my few bergeoning Windows projects I chose to use Allegro and SDL. Yes DOS is dead, it''s sad really. It''s microsoft''s fault for not creating a native 32-bit DOS when the 3x86 was released. They could have redesigned it then with multi-tasking. Then of coarse, there would still be windows, but more than likely it would not be the ''full'' OS it is today but rather a GUI like the linux window managers. Any how dos was good, and it withstood windows games until directX caught up around version 3 or 4. I still like DOS, I have a DOS machine still. Currently I''m coding a rather fancy GUI with native apps for DOS, which supports multi-tasking and windows. Of coarse you can launch a strait DOS game or app from it with a click of the mouse, which gives it thousands of great cheap apps. Windows ease of use with 100% DOS compatability and power anyone?

##### Share on other sites
HPFS was on OS/2 before Windows 3.x existed.

And before FAT16, MS/PCDOS used FAT12. Probably had earlier ones aswell, but I don''t know of them.

Oh, and Long File Names (Win32 style) ARE supported by FAT16 under DOS, and I mean completely on DOS, not a windows version of it.

Beer - the love catalyst
good ol'' homepage

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ravyne
Yes DOS is dead, it''s sad really. It''s microsoft''s fault for not creating a native 32-bit DOS when the 3x86 was released. They could have redesigned it then with multi-tasking.

No they couldn''t. DOS is hostile to multitasking in many different ways. Interrupts, direct access to arbitrary memory, complete absence of any real scheduling kernel, etc, etc.

They would''ve needed to re-write a new OS from almost the ground up... which they did. They got Win95. Now, perhaps they could have separated the GUI from the core OS, but that wasn''t a part of their long-term marketing plan. I think their plan has worked out pretty well for them, so I really can''t fault the strategy. Now they''re rolling in internet browsing and msn messaging to the core OS. What benefit would there have been to cutting _out_ the GUI? All it would do is make it easier to use competing desktops, leading to the UI fragmentation that''s such a huge problem for linux distros today.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
On the list of reasons not to mourn DOS:
- near and far pointer hassles
- total lack of security
...

‘But truth''s a menace, science a public danger.’ Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

- you forgot to say DRIVERS! every game was differen in is driver use, and practicaly required a separate autoexec/config.sys for each game

and the graphics were crap, unless they used VESA, which I still havnt gotten to work

Windows and DX fixed all of thos problems, you get 4gb of address space and a universal interface to any sound/3d/input hardware imaganable

but its true, some of DOS games were the best... Privateer2, Elite 2/3, The Incredible Machine....

##### Share on other sites
Yes, I forgot drivers, but someone else mentioned them - Martee to be precise. 4Gb of per process address space - well, only 2 on NT, but still, much better than 640kb (baring extenders).

##### Share on other sites
Oh man, can I tell most of you don''t even go near Assembly. Now, I don''t say that crudely. I state it as facts.

But anyway, (sigh)

- Anyone ever try to get a hold of smooth gameplay under Windows?
- Anyone ever chase after the DirectX 60 FPS leprechaun, like it actually existed, and get to catch it?
- Anyone ever had their Hard drive munched away because their OS ate it?
- Anyone ever heard of the phrase "Windows sucks!!"?
- And now.. I wonder what program windows loads first before running... hmmm.. does COMMAND dot COM ring a bell?

Now, DOS may be dead, as most say. And it never was that good, anyway. Maybe it''s a thing people have for things lost. I dunno.

But one thing I know for sure: DOS, with its flaws, before Mr. Gates and his pack made a cheap attempt to copy MacOs, is 1000% better than windows with its own. Perhaps not better if you regard a better system as one you can point and click!, but better in a professional manner (anybody ever OBSERVE the output of INT 08 line on an oscilloscope when running DOS, and then running Windows and doing the same thing? Didn''t think so.)

No serious game programmer should ever have to go through the punishment of doing video time politely with a pokemon screen saver (I think I read somewhere this section is called G A M E PROGRAMMING. Who''s worrying about multitasking or security within a GAME, other than the games? Visual environment, anyone?).

As for the command line thing, you''d have to be a moron not to tell it''s more powerful to have a command line prompt than a stupid mouse. Man, I''d like to see the day.. Some mission to Mars, and the astro-nuts point and clicking their way through space. Is that progress? But then again, what do I know? I''m old fashioned, old school.

2600.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
- Anyone ever try to get a hold of smooth gameplay under Windows?

I have extremely smooth gameplay, thank you very much.

quote:

- Anyone ever heard of the phrase "Windows sucks!!"?

Now you''re just sounding like the regular l33t h4x0r tr0ll.

quote:

- And now.. I wonder what program windows loads first before running... hmmm.. does COMMAND dot COM ring a bell?

My Windows doesnt load COMMAND.COM - ever(unless I am feeling extremely masochistic).
quote:

But one thing I know for sure: DOS, with its flaws, before Mr. Gates and his pack made a cheap attempt to copy MacOs

MS announced Windows in 1983 - I believe the Macintosh didnt surface until 1984. Apple ripped off Xerox for the windowing system anyway.

quote:

Perhaps not better if you regard a better system as one you can point and click!,

The NT kernel is vastly better in any imaginable way.

quote:

but better in a professional manner (anybody ever OBSERVE the output of INT 08 line on an oscilloscope when running DOS, and then running Windows and doing the same thing?

The words professional and DOS dont belong in the same sentence. DOS is rotten on the surface and rotten in the core.

quote:

I''m old fashioned, old school.

I believe thats what killed the dinosaurs.

Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

• ## Partner Spotlight

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627646
• Total Posts
2978383

• 10
• 12
• 22
• 13
• 33