doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) (06/14/91)
coy@ssc-vax (Stephen B Coy) writes: >In article <1234@ocsmd.com> glenn@zeus.ocs.com (Glenn Ford) writes: >> >>Has anyone used INTEL386 C? It is supposed to make 386 executables >>that don't need a DOS extender! It apparently wraps its own >>DOS extender into the executable! Sounds too good to be true?! >[...stuff deleted...] >your application upon linking. The DOS extender will recognize up >to 16Mb of extended RAM and can be set up to use up to 4Gb of disk >space for virtual memory. Perhaps the nicest thing about the DOS >extender is that Intel requires NO royalties for distribution of >executables unlike Phar Lap and Ergo. The DOS extender is DPMI >compliant which means that it runs just fine under a Windows DOS box >when you're in 386 enhanced mode. Speed wise, the impression I've >[...stuff deleted...] >some reason which I haven't looked into yet. Price wise, compared >to Watcom 386 and a DOS extender and royalties you just can't beat >the price of the Intel package. Zortech is now advertiseing a DOS extender without royalities with their C/C++ compiler. It is DPMI, VCPI, and 'vanilla' DOS compliant (I don't believe the Intel one is VCPI compliant). Also of interest is that it is VERY small. To a "Hello world" program it adds about 10K compared to 'large memory model' program, a 100K large model program will normally show a size reduction. Almost all the standard library functions in the Zortech library 'just work' no fuss, no muss (a couple of bios_ functions are missing, along with spawn() and exec()). This means your interrupt driven mouse code, graphics, direct screen I/O, etc work the same as in the more conventional memory models. This extender comes with the Developer's Edition 3.0 which includes everything you need to develop for MS DOS, MS Windows (SDK isn't required anymore), and OS/2. Also included is a royality free 286 DOS extender. Package price is about $600 via mail order houses, about $700 direct from Zortech. >discalimer: I have no connection with Intel except for a $500 hole >in my Visa card. disclaimer: I have no connection with Zortech except they bought the distribution rights to the 386 DOS extender from me. doug@proto.com
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (06/14/91)
Two questions: 1) Is Intel's compiler DPMI 0.9 or 1.0 compliant? 2) Are you SURE the Zortech's dos extender is DPMI compliant? 2a) If so, again, 0.9 or 1.0? -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feustel@netcom.com or feustel@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
dj@ctron.com (DJ Delorie) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.231255.7781@proto.com>, doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) writes: > >>Has anyone used INTEL386 C? It is supposed to make 386 executables > >>that don't need a DOS extender! It apparently wraps its own > >>DOS extender into the executable! Sounds too good to be true?! > >[...stuff deleted...] > >your application upon linking. The DOS extender will recognize up > >to 16Mb of extended RAM and can be set up to use up to 4Gb of disk > >space for virtual memory. Perhaps the nicest thing about the DOS > >extender is that Intel requires NO royalties for distribution of > >executables unlike Phar Lap and Ergo. The DOS extender is DPMI > >compliant which means that it runs just fine under a Windows DOS box > >when you're in 386 enhanced mode. Speed wise, the impression I've > >[...stuff deleted...] > >some reason which I haven't looked into yet. Price wise, compared > >to Watcom 386 and a DOS extender and royalties you just can't beat > >the price of the Intel package. > > Package price is about $600 via mail order houses, about $700 direct > from Zortech. > > >discalimer: I have no connection with Intel except for a $500 hole > >in my Visa card. *I* can beat the Intel price . . . For those of you that can't handle holes in your Visa card, you can always get my GCC/G++ 32-bit compiler for NO CHARGE. You can wrap the extender in the executable, handle up to 128M physical/128M paging, and the sources come with it (take *that*, Intel!). You can avoid royalties if you choose to follow the GNU GPL conditions, or opt for the very minimal royalty schedule. Supports himem.sys, but no vcpi or dpmi (yet). To get via anonymous FTP: grape.ecs.clarkson.edu pub/msdos/djgpp To get via MAIL: mail archive-server@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Subject: <none> help index msdos/djgpp send msdos/djgpp readme To get via mail order ($150 for six floppies, manuals, support): Austin Code Works 11100 Leafwood Lane Austin TX 78750-3464 1-512-258-0785 DJ dj@ctron.com
jwbirdsa@amc.com (James Birdsall) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.231255.7781@proto.com>, doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) writes: >Has anyone used INTEL386 C? It is supposed to make 386 executables >that don't need a DOS extender! It apparently wraps its own >DOS extender into the executable! Sounds too good to be true?! It's OK. It's not perfect. The DOS extender is bound into the executable, so the final runnable result is just one piece. >The DOS extender will recognize up >to 16Mb of extended RAM and can be set up to use up to 4Gb of disk >space for virtual memory. No. It will use up to 32M of RAM. Maximum virtual memory is 256M. >Perhaps the nicest thing about the DOS >extender is that Intel requires NO royalties for distribution of >executables unlike Phar Lap and Ergo. True. >The DOS extender is DPMI >compliant which means that it runs just fine under a Windows DOS box >when you're in 386 enhanced mode. Unless you're trying to do floating point. Windows presently blocks the interrupt their floating-point emulator needs to see in order to function. If you have a coprocessor, it should work OK though. Note that it isn't compatible with QEMM, 386^Max, and other such VCPI compliant software. However, it is supposed to work with QEMM/386^Max if you're also running Windows at the same time. -- James W. Birdsall WORK: jwbirdsa@amc.com {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!jwbirdsa HOME: {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!picarefy!jwbirdsa OTHER: 71261.1731@compuserve.com ================== Kitten: a small homicidal muffin on legs. ================== =========== "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin ===========
doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) (06/15/91)
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >Two questions: >1) Is Intel's compiler DPMI 0.9 or 1.0 compliant? >2) Are you SURE the Zortech's dos extender is DPMI compliant? >2a) If so, again, 0.9 or 1.0? 1) I can't find my brochure on Intel right now so I don't know for sure that they even make a claim one way or the other. 2) Well... since I wrote it I'm as sure as anyone is likely to be (without blind faith). It passes the Zortech compiler and runtime library test suites while running under Windows 3.0 in all modes (therefore: It is DMPI 0.9 complaint), you can hook hardware and software interrupts with it under Windows, etc, etc. Any specific test you have in mind? 2a) I just got the 1.0 spec the other day. I don't see any thing that looks like a problem after my first couple of passes through the spec. I don't have a 1.0 host to test it with -- yet. doug@proto.com
doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) (06/17/91)
jwbirdsa@amc.com (James Birdsall) writes: >In article <1991Jun13.231255.7781@proto.com>, doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) writes: >>Has anyone used INTEL386 C? It is supposed to make 386 executables >>that don't need a DOS extender! It apparently wraps its own James, you make it look like you were quoteing me directly... I was quoteing someone else... >>The DOS extender is DPMI >>compliant which means that it runs just fine under a Windows DOS box >>when you're in 386 enhanced mode. > Unless you're trying to do floating point. Windows presently blocks >the interrupt their floating-point emulator needs to see in order to >function. If you have a coprocessor, it should work OK though. Zortech's DOS extender (which I wrote) doesn't have this problem. In fact most of the development was done on a machine without a coprocessor and all the floating point code (as well as nearly all the Zortech C library, extensions and all) work just fine with all combinations of Windows modes, coprocessor, VCPI, etc, etc. The design philosophy was: "it should just Work". By the way... the floating-point interrupt isn't the only bug-a-boo in Windows, in my more candor moments I express words (not fit for polite company) to the effect that Windows 3.0 isn't compliant with the DPMI spec. > Note that it isn't compatible with QEMM, 386^Max, and other such >VCPI compliant software. However, it is supposed to work with QEMM/386^Max >if you're also running Windows at the same time. I believe Zortech will be the first to ship a DOS extender that is DOS, VCPI, and DMPI compliant (correct me if I'm wrong). doug@proto.com uunet!proto!doug
doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) (06/19/91)
I wrote: >feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >>Two questions: >>1) Is Intel's compiler DPMI 0.9 or 1.0 compliant? >>2) Are you SURE the Zortech's dos extender is DPMI compliant? >>2a) If so, again, 0.9 or 1.0? >1) I can't find my brochure on Intel right now so I don't know for sure >that they even make a claim one way or the other. I just called Intel's "FaxBACK Information Service" and got document #9902 (call 800-525-3019 from a Touch-Tone phone). In that document they claim "The Code Builder DOS Extender conforms to the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) specification version 0.9..." The 1.0 spec requires all 0.9 conforming programs to work with 1.0. So there shouldn't be any problems in this regard (same applies to the Zortech DOS extender). Also see an ad for it in the July 1991 issue Dr. Dobb's Journal (page 53). Also see an ad for the Zortech Compiler and DOS extenders in the same magazine page 27. -- uunet!proto!doug doug@proto.com
antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun17.000940.14512@proto.com> doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) writes: >I believe Zortech will be the first to ship a DOS extender that is DOS, VCPI, >and DMPI compliant (correct me if I'm wrong). You are wrong. I recently bought a copy of the Phar Lap 286 DOS Extender, and it is DOS, VCPI, DPMI complient. One big disadvantage of Phar Lap is that distribution of software which uses the extender is not royalty-free as the Zortech stuff is.
doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) (06/20/91)
antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.000940.14512@proto.com> doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman) writes: >>I believe Zortech will be the first to ship a DOS extender that is DOS, VCPI, >>and DMPI compliant (correct me if I'm wrong). >You are wrong. I recently bought a copy of the Phar Lap 286 DOS Extender, >and it is DOS, VCPI, DPMI complient. I meant (but neglected) to say a 386 DOS extender that is DOS, VCPI, and DMPI compliant. With that qualification how do I stand? -- uunet!proto!doug doug@proto.com