cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/07/90)
The awful day is fast arriving when overlays won't fit out application
into the DOS address space. I understand that Microsoft Windows 3.0
uses a DOS extender. Whose is it? Rational's DOS 16/M floats around
in my memory, but I would like to hear something a little more
authoritative.
Has anyone ported an application to any of the DOS extenders? Any
gotchas to watch for? I suspect that this is a subject of general
interest. What do you do for customers with 8086/8088 processors?
Tell them they need to upgrade?
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Pipe bomb: appropriate technology for living lightly on Mother Earth. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!bmarsh@cod.NOSC.MIL (William C. Marsh) (06/08/90)
In article <3761@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Has anyone ported an application to any of the DOS extenders? Any >gotchas to watch for? I suspect that this is a subject of general >interest. What do you do for customers with 8086/8088 processors? >Tell them they need to upgrade? I have used the Phar Lap extender for the 386, and about the only changes I had to make (other than satisfying the High-C compiler) was to change any direct call to DOS via intdos() and their like. I have no complaints about the extender, as all the functions I have used have worked exactly as documented. It's kinda tough to debug, as I miss CodeView, and their debugger has a tendancy to single step into interrupt service routines that get called between two of your instructions... (And always right before I get to the broken part! ;-) One limitation is that 'protected' mode programs can not spawn other programs... As for the users, you have to consider the program/package you are writing. If you are writing a package that will have reasonable performance on an 8088/8086, then I would expect a version that works on one. But if the program is a 3-D cadd program, I wouldn't expect any kind of 'reasonable' performance on an 8088, so I wouldn't think requiring a 286 or 386 would be that much of a handicap. Bill -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."