Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

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

BIOSME

Good old DOS

This topic is 6037 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

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 this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
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 this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 6037 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!