Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
> Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> : DOS is just better for some things.
> 
>   What things? I can't think of any.

I'm going to use your own words against you -

"  You also must be able to boot from a floppy disk. Suppose that your
computer gets infected by a virus. You have to boot from a clean floppy
and run a virus scanner from that floppy disk. You can't make a clean
boot to windows from a floppy disk. If you boot to windows, the virus will
also load itself to memory. If it has some sort of stealth capabilities or
something like that, there you are.
  That's why f-prot is still a dos-program."

See ! There are some things you can do better in DOS than in Windows :)

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Feb 2000 11:11:57 -0500, Nieminen Juha wrote:
>Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>: DOS is just better for some things.
>
>  What things? I can't think of any.

Specifically, things that don't require the support of a full 32-bit
multitasking, multiuser operating system, like flash BIOS updates or 
lots of embedded and other industrial applications.  Go read the 
interview; it's very informative:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/28/1225206&mode=nocomment

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:16:30 -0500, "Ian Burgmyer"
<the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>1. In Windows, how come DOS Quake gives me a 5 FPS framsboost over true DOS
>(6.22)?

Maybe the windows DPMI is better than Q's?

>2. How some people report WinPOV faster then DOSPOV?

What compiler is used for each? What settings? Is parsing an issue?
All things equal, windows is slower than DOS. Even the mouse
interrupts take some CPU time let alone the gui and all other things
it's doing behind your back.

>3. How can you prefer DOS over Linux? ;)

A mystery yet to be unveiled.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: See ! There are some things you can do better in DOS than in Windows :)

  The question was whether DOS is better than Linux in some things or not.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: Specifically, things that don't require the support of a full 32-bit
: multitasking, multiuser operating system, like flash BIOS updates or 
: lots of embedded and other industrial applications.

  If the program does not need those things, do they hurt it? I don't think
that multitasking, memory protection, etc. is a bad thing even if the program
doesn't need them (the program can't do any harm to your computer if it's
protected).
  I don't see why it's better to run programs in an unprotected environment.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Feb 2000 06:01:40 -0500, Nieminen Juha wrote:
>Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>  If the program does not need those things, do they hurt it? I don't think
>that multitasking, memory protection, etc. is a bad thing even if the program
>doesn't need them (the program can't do any harm to your computer if it's
>protected).

Sometimes, the program has to do some harm to your computer.  Take a BIOS flash
update (not necessarily your motherboard BIOS, but some other BIOS.)  Its only
goal in life is to do things to your hardware that are not normal operations.
The sort of protection against unvalidated hardware accesses that would 
normally be good is bad in this case.  Besides, multitasking, memory protection,
etc. take code and resources.  Resources are scarce in many embedded systems to 
begin with, and more code means more things that can break.

I'm not saying I agree with the notion that DOS is somehow better in that 
regard, since it seems to me that code with no OS at all or with a custom 
embedded OS would be even more streamlined for these purposes, but DOS is a 
nice compromise OS with lots of cheap, available tools.  

If I were doing it myself, of course, I'd probably choose Linux anyway, but DOS
does have its place, even today.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: Sometimes, the program has to do some harm to your computer.  Take a BIOS flash
: update (not necessarily your motherboard BIOS, but some other BIOS.)

  I think that you can make anything you like to your computer as root.

: Besides, multitasking, memory protection,
: etc. take code and resources.  Resources are scarce in many embedded systems to 
: begin with, and more code means more things that can break.

  How many embedded systems you know that are able to run DOS?-)

  I think that there are linux versions that are designed for embedded
systems.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha wrote:

>   Disclaimer: I use the dos-box (well, actually the 4dos-box) a lot when
> I use windows. Some things are a lot easier to do in the command line than
> with windows explorer.

Have you used cygwin?  ( http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ )
bash over command.com (or cmd.exe).  Great stuff.

dik

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha wrote:

>   How many embedded systems you know that are able to run DOS?-)

I am working on a project where the legacy code is pascal on embedded DOS.
(New work is embedded WinCE.  An improvement maybe?)  This product has
been in the (industrial) field for 15 years.

dik

Post a reply to this message

"Nieminen Juha" <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> wrote in message
news:38a17ad2@news.povray.org...
> Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> : Sometimes, the program has to do some harm to your computer.  Take a
BIOS flash
> : update (not necessarily your motherboard BIOS, but some other BIOS.)
>
>   I think that you can make anything you like to your computer as root.

Yup.

> : Besides, multitasking, memory protection,
> : etc. take code and resources.  Resources are scarce in many embedded
systems to
> : begin with, and more code means more things that can break.
>
>   How many embedded systems you know that are able to run DOS?-)

All of them.  Hell, I have an 8088 system running DOS 6.22 very stable.

>   I think that there are linux versions that are designed for embedded
> systems.

Yup.  ELKS (http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/), although last time I checked,
it wasn't very usable.

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)

Post a reply to this message