1. Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by dcole Sep 22, 2010
- 3167 views
DOS IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED IN VERSION 4.1.4B.
I vehemently oppose this decision.
Half my programs are written in Dos(.ex)
Some programs like animal.ex (in the Demos) do work in Version 4.0.b4
But a lot of my programs I get pallet() is not supported.
So do I have to change them all to Windows(.exw)?
No, I can still run them using Version 3.1.1.
But this requires running two Versions (3.1.1 and 4.0.b4).
This means changing all the file extension names.
Or changing the registry or using two users.
All this is discussed in detail here.
http://oe.cowgar.com/forum/112338.wc?last_id=112378
But why should I have to go through all that?
If get new version Microsoft Excel, my old .xls documents will work on the newer version.
However, if I save a .xls using the new version it my not work if I try to open it with the old version.
But I don't care because I'm not going to use the older version anymore because the new version works on both the old and newer .xls s.
Why can't Euphoria be like this? All files created with Version 3.1.1 should work with Version 4.0.b4.
I would call Euphoria 4.0.b4 poor program design.
Don Cole
2. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 22, 2010
- 3117 views
DOS IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED IN VERSION 4.1.4B.
There is no such version. Presumably you mean 4.0b4. In fact, DOS support was dropped a while ago in the 4.0 development.
I vehemently oppose this decision.
The basic reason for the decision is that there was no one willing/able to support DOS development.
Half my programs are written in Dos(.ex)
Some programs like animal.ex (in the Demos) do work in Version 4.0.b4
But a lot of my programs I get pallet() is not supported.
You might try using the DOS rescue file written by RDS. I think you can get it from the Archive when they released an updated langwar.
If get new version Microsoft Excel, my old .xls documents will work on the newer version.
However, if I save a .xls using the new version it my not work if I try to open it with the old version.
But I don't care because I'm not going to use the older version anymore because the new version works on both the old and newer .xls s.
Why can't Euphoria be like this? All files created with Version 3.1.1 should work with Version 4.0.b4.
I would call Euphoria 4.0.b4 poor program design.
One reason I can think of is that the people donating their time to developing euphoria have a lot fewer resources than Microsoft does when it develops Excel.
Matt
3. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 23, 2010
- 3060 views
Don't fool yourself, Microsoft products often have problems just reading older data files. And, you'll notice, they don't give away their software. Each upgrade to Excel brings them what? - tens of millions at least.
Euphoria 4.x is far more useful and usable than 3.1, has been quite stable for me, and costs nothing.
Complaining about lack of DOS support is like complaining that Chevron stations no longer carry kerosene to fill up your Stanley Steamer...
4. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by CoJaBo Sep 23, 2010
- 3103 views
If get new version Microsoft Excel, my old .xls documents will work on the newer version.
No. No, they don't. Try opening a non-trivial spreadsheet in Excel '07 sometime. Then tally the number of weeks it takes u to get them all working again.
Try opening a dos program on Vista or Seven sometime for an even more relevant example.
Port your apps to a platform that is actually still supported.
5. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by bugfinder Sep 23, 2010
- 3023 views
DOS IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED IN VERSION 4.1.4B. I vehemently oppose this decision. Half my programs are written in Dos(.ex) Some programs like animal.ex (in the Demos) do work in Version 4.0.b4 But a lot of my programs I get pallet() is not supported. So do I have to change them all to Windows(.exw)? No, I can still run them using Version 3.1.1. But this requires running two Versions (3.1.1 and 4.0.b4).
Don:
I am also very disappointed with the decision to drop DOS.
I think that it was a total disaster for Euphoria.
I had a lot of code written for 4.0 that I dropped because of the loss of DOS support.
Ver. 4.0 is bloated with features that were not needed or necessary.
It is over complicated to use to write programs with.
It has lost the original concept of being fast and easy to use.
I wonder how many users have left for these reasons.
The only features I think are valuable are forward reference and scoping.
I think these should have been applied to ver. 3.0 keeping DOS support.
The rest of the features should have been optional add on libraries or features for the users who wanted all the bloat.
Anyway that is only my opinion which doesn't count.
The only solution you have is to use DOSBOX.
6. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by useless Sep 23, 2010
- 2944 views
Complaining about lack of DOS support is like complaining that Chevron stations no longer carry kerosene to fill up your Stanley Steamer...
Which strikes me as odd, because a modern nuclear sub is a steam engine, and most of the new AIP diesel-electric subs have a steam engine as a submerged battery charger. Btw, the last certified speed run of a steam car was 140mph.
In 1914 the Doble B model could hit 60mph in 14 seconds, 2x as fast as a internal combustion engine, plus it was silent, and had no need of a transmission. It took virtually no time to drive off either, from dead cold it was driveable by the time you got the garage door open. The model E could make 1000ftlbs of torque in 40 sec after starting cold in below zero weather, and 0-75mph in 10 seconds. And not only do a few 100 year-old model E still survive today, they still run, and pass California automobile emissions standards too. Plus, in a pinch, they can be made to run on any liquid or gaseous fuel, whichever is cheapest.
I'd be happy to have one. And happy to keep using dos.
useless
7. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 23, 2010
- 2964 views
I never said we always make the best decisions, or nor do we get a choice in most of them.
Microsoft doesn't seem very interested in supporting DOS, for example. Neither do some of the hardware manufacturers - some of the newer graphics cards don't have drivers for DOS.
Euphoria may, or may not, be dying. DOS certainly is.
We can adapt or become museum curators, our choice.
And before someone starts in with the "old hardware" excuse - every computer I own (5, I think) came from the town dump or was given to me by businesses as "broken beyond repair".
As we both know, "broken beyond repair" most often means "It was running Windows and just quit". We know how to fix that, don't we?
8. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by LarryMiller Sep 23, 2010
- 2984 views
I can't say I was thrilled to hear that DOS would no longer be supported. But I think it was the right thing to do. How long can you continue to support a platform that has few users, requires a inordinate amount of time, and has limited support by modern operating systems? I think the developers limited time is best spent on Windows, Linux, OSX, etc., systems that have a broader user base, both now and in the future.
9. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Sep 23, 2010
- 3013 views
I am also very disappointed with the decision to drop DOS.
I think that it was a total disaster for Euphoria.
Are you seriously suggesting that the primary reason people used Euphoria was because it supported the ancient DOS environment?
Ok, let's assume that there is some applications out there that absolutely depend on running in DOS. In that case, why do you feel that Euphoria v3 can no longer be used to run those applications? Version 3 is not going away. It will still exist. No one is forced to ditch v3 for v4.
As I've said before, one uses the appropriate tool for the job at hand. If your application needs v3 then use v3. Why is that not an option for you?
I had a lot of code written for 4.0 that I dropped because of the loss of DOS support.
The source code is open source. Anyone can take a copy of the code and modify it for their own needs. You can get the v3 code and add in the stuff you like about v4 or get the v4 code and add DOS support. No one is preventing you from doing that.
The main reason we dropped DOS support is that we have no developers that are willing to support it. If you can get someone who wants to take on that workload they are welcome to join the dev team.
DOS support was not dropped because we don't like DOS. As Microsoft advances Windows, it is becoming harder to implement the DOS code in modern Windows systems, and it will soon get to the point where you will only be able to run DOS applications - regardless of which computer language is used - on old (unsupported) versions of Windows or DOS.
Ver. 4.0 is bloated with features that were not needed or necessary.
I beg to differ. Again, if a V4 feature is not suitable for you, for whatever reason, then don't use it. You are not being forced to use V4 features. In fact, one can still code Euphoria applications as if there were written for v3 syntax. So I repeat ... you are not being forced to use V4 features.
It is over complicated to use to write programs with.
Why do you say that? You do not have to use the new features if you don't want to. If you wish to write code using only v3 features you can.
What specifically do you find as complicated in v4?
It has lost the original concept of being fast and easy to use.
Really? It is still fast and easy, and some might even say faster and easier to use. Have you got evidence to the contrary?
I wonder how many users have left for these reasons.
Me too.
The only features I think are valuable are forward reference and scoping.
So, don't use the other features! You know you don't have to.
I think these should have been applied to ver. 3.0 keeping DOS support.
Keeping DOS support is not a static thing. It requires work to get DOS applications to run in modern Windows environments. Who is going to do that?
The rest of the features should have been optional add on libraries or features for the users who wanted all the bloat.
Which features of v4 do you feel that are being forced on coders to use? And what exactly do you mean by 'bloat'?
Anyway that is only my opinion which doesn't count.
This is also not true.
The only solution you have is to use DOSBOX.
There other solutions ... anyone know of someone who can join the team to support DOS?
Forked into: Open Call for DOS Developers
10. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 23, 2010
- 2937 views
It is over complicated to use to write programs with.
Why do you say that? You do not have to use the new features if you don't want to. If you wish to write code using only v3 features you can.
What specifically do you find as complicated in v4?
Indeed, I would argue that a lot of the changes were difficult to implement, but ultimately make using euphoria to write code much easier.
Matt
11. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by dcole Sep 24, 2010
- 2867 views
Complaining about lack of DOS support is like complaining that Chevron stations no longer carry kerosene to fill up your Stanley Steamer...
They shoe horses don't they?
Don Cole
12. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by dcole Sep 24, 2010
- 2960 views
Port your apps to a platform that is actually still supported.
How do I do that?
Don Cole
13. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 24, 2010
- 2868 views
This is indeed the proper approach - update your app so it works on hardware that's available. As for how to do that - it all depends upon what the app does.
Give me an example of something you don't know how to convert, and I'll give it a try. Might be an interesting contest idea.
I can think of things that cannot be done in DOS, but are relatively easy with a GUI. I can't think of things that can only be done in DOS. (Provided there's no requirement that it must run on a TRS-80 or the like!)
14. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by m_sabal Sep 24, 2010
- 2907 views
Allow me to offer another solution for those who are adamantly against the changes in 4.0. The source code for 3.1 is still available. Get it and start writing your own support for the 3.x line. There's no law that says a different group of developers can't keep a legacy version of open source software under support. Taking the Linux kernel as an example, there is still a small group still supporting the 2.4.x line, even though the 2.6.x line has been out and official for years. If DOS support is that important to you, then support it yourself. That's the beauty of open source.
15. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 24, 2010
- 2887 views
Port your apps to a platform that is actually still supported.
How do I do that?
Don Cole
Show me an app you want converted.
16. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by useless Sep 24, 2010
- 2913 views
Port your apps to a platform that is actually still supported.
How do I do that?
Don Cole
Show me an app you want converted.
PortMon.exw by Jesus Consuegra, as seen on
http://www.geocities.com/jconsuegra
or
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/portmon.zip
As a side benefit, you get to figure out which version of win32lib it was meant to work with, and fix that too! (back then, no one zipped the required files in their zips, despite the requests to do so, something about space on the server and bandwidth.)
useless
17. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2948 views
PortMon.exw by Jesus Consuegra, as seen on
http://www.geocities.com/jconsuegra
or
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/portmon.zip
I've converted the program (took less than a minute, and I had to download dlportio.dll) but I get an error message:
DriverLINX Port I/O Driver DLPORTIO.SYS device driver not loaded. Port I/O will have no effect.
18. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by useless Sep 24, 2010
- 2919 views
Ok, then it still doesn't work, eh? How about IO.EW as found on
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/5956
useless
19. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2890 views
Ok, then it still doesn't work, eh? How about IO.EW as found on
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/5956
useless
I get "Sorry, the GeoCities web site you were trying to reach is no longer available." when trying to access that page...
20. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by jaygade Sep 24, 2010
- 2810 views
Yeah, Geocities closed down some time ago.
21. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2885 views
Ok, then it still doesn't work, eh? How about IO.EW as found on
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/5956
That's a great point. For a lot of old stuff, euphoria is the least problematic dependency.
Matt
22. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by Vinoba Sep 24, 2010
- 2821 views
DOS support is essential for a somewhat different reason.
Whilst euphoria programmers look to the two main GUI implmentations, there is nothing to stop a person from creating a .lib or .dll in DOS based Euphoria and then connecting it to a particular "Click" in another GUI application elsewhere to do a small task or a number of small tasks. The snippets created under euphoria are the fastest and the smallest compared to those in freebasic, Visual basic, and clipper. I don't even look at the monstocities created under Visual C
23. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by jaygade Sep 24, 2010
- 2789 views
DOS support is essential for a somewhat different reason.
Whilst euphoria programmers look to the two main GUI implmentations, there is nothing to stop a person from creating a .lib or .dll in DOS based Euphoria and then connecting it to a particular "Click" in another GUI application elsewhere to do a small task or a number of small tasks. The snippets created under euphoria are the fastest and the smallest compared to those in freebasic, Visual basic, and clipper. I don't even look at the monstocities created under Visual C
There is no dependency on DOS to do that.
The only DOS dependencies I can think of are DOS-style graphics and sound, and low-level port access. And I think that the first two are probably the most significant to translate to a non-DOS platform.
24. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by useless Sep 24, 2010
- 2957 views
Ok, then it still doesn't work, eh? How about IO.EW as found on
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/5956
useless
I get "Sorry, the GeoCities web site you were trying to reach is no longer available." when trying to access that page...
Also in the archives under:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/euio.zip
useless
25. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2836 views
I'm using Windows 7, which probably means io.ew won't work for me... :/
I get this output when running it:
IO.DLL demo By Monty B. King IO.DLL by Fred Bulback Press a key start clearing port bitsA privileged instruction was executed at address 0x0035386b. Exception fielded by 0x00564c70 EAX=0x0006f0c8 EBX=0x00000003 ECX=0x0006f0c8 EDX=0x00150378 ESI=0x00000000 EDI=0x0015c0b8 EBP=0x0006f0a4 ESP=0x0006f0a4 EIP=0x0035386b EFL=0x00010297 CS =0x0000001b SS =0x00000023 DS =0x00000023 ES =0x00000023 FS =0x0000003b GS =0x00000000 Stack dump (SS:ESP) 0x0006f0f4 0x00546732 0x00000378 0x00000000 0x00553096 0x00000000 0x00593fde 0x00598390 0x00598390 0x00000378 0x00000000 0x00353864 0x00000026 0x001697a8 0x00000000 0x0015c0a8 0x00000003 0x001697b8 0x00000008 0x00000008 0x0006f210 0x0015c0b8 0x01bbe4d4 0x01bbe4c4 0x00543fb8 0x00000005 0x0000000c 0x0000006a 0x00000006 0x000003e8 0x00000b80 0x378dd69c 0x5aaa93cf 0x0006f150 0x7731b768 0x74bab294 0x00000bc2 0xfa67b90e 0xc6d750eb 0x0000001a 0x00000029 0xe8d60800 0x0006f18c 0x00000029 0x0006f170 0x4fd720ef 0x0006f174 0x77080e12 0x0006f180 0x00594468 0x0006f1d0 0x00594444 0x00568c80 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0000001e 0x00567ff0 0x4fd7203f 0x0006f1a4 0x77080e12 0x00000000 0x408f4000 0x0006fe80 0x00594444 0x00568c80 0x00000000 0x0053f2bb 0x0000001e 0x00567ff0 0x4c9cad21 0x01bb79d0 0x00000000
I'll see if I can find an earlier version of Windows...
26. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2869 views
Ok, then it still doesn't work, eh? How about IO.EW as found on
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/5956
useless
I get "Sorry, the GeoCities web site you were trying to reach is no longer available." when trying to access that page...
Also in the archives under:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/euio.zip
Yeah, another dependency that won't work on a modern operating system:
Note:
IO.DLL is for Windows 95. IO.DLL will not work with Windows NT
What was the point, again, of looking at this?
Matt
27. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2786 views
What was the point, again, of looking at this?
Probably porting DOS functionality (reading ports in this case) into Windows.
28. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2823 views
What was the point, again, of looking at this?
Probably porting DOS functionality (reading ports in this case) into Windows.
What ports? New computers no longer have com ports or parallel ports. Time to start using libusb.
Jeremy
29. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2965 views
What was the point, again, of looking at this?
Probably porting DOS functionality (reading ports in this case) into Windows.
But in this case, it's literally talking about porting DOS, and doesn't have anything to do with Euphoria, or which platforms it does and doesn't support. We might as well complain that the Windows version can't link to Linux shared libraries.
Matt
30. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2793 views
Yeah, another dependency that won't work on a modern operating system:
Note:
IO.DLL is for Windows 95. IO.DLL will not work with Windows NT
What was the point, again, of looking at this?
Matt
Probably porting DOS functionality (reading ports in this case) into Windows.
This is supported natively on Linux/GNU.
More importantly, there is a driver that works on Windows NT/2K/XP that provides I/O port functionality. I'm pretty sure that Kat knows this because IIRC she was the person who told me about it and where to find it.
31. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2769 views
More importantly, there is a driver that works on Windows NT/2K/XP that provides I/O port functionality. I'm pretty sure that Kat knows this because IIRC she was the person who told me about it and where to find it.
Well, I'm unfamiliar with all this stuff so I'll defer... looks like this thread can be closed. :)
32. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by dcole Sep 24, 2010
- 2801 views
This is indeed the proper approach - update your app so it works on hardware that's available. As for how to do that - it all depends upon what the app does.
Give me an example of something you don't know how to convert, and I'll give it a try. Might be an interesting contest idea.
Actually there are only two things.
set_active_page(2)
set_display_page(2)
Don Cole
33. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by dcole Sep 24, 2010
- 2834 views
Sorry I forgot a couple more,
text_color
bk_color
wait_key
RED,BLUE etc... this I can probebly figure out.
But it has to change the dosbox colors.
Don Cole
34. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 24, 2010
- 2799 views
Probably porting DOS functionality (reading ports in this case) into Windows.
This is supported natively on Linux/GNU.
More importantly, there is a driver that works on Windows NT/2K/XP that provides I/O port functionality. I'm pretty sure that Kat knows this because IIRC she was the person who told me about it and where to find it.
Yes, of course there is a way to do it on other platforms, but none of that was written in Euphoria. It was using a compiled dll that only ran on windows 95. So the issue with that particular program not running really had nothing to do with Euphoria.
Matt
35. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 24, 2010
- 2794 views
- Last edited Sep 26, 2010
Sorry I forgot a couple more,
text_color
bk_color
wait_key
RED,BLUE etc... this I can probebly figure out.
But it has to change the dosbox colors.
Don Cole
See, there's the problem. I wasn't thinking of writing a library for 4.0 that would 'fix' DOS. I was suggesting that you give an example of a program that could (should) be converted to run on a modern OS. To do otherwise would be waste of time, because the average person will not use DOS.
I've taken 3 programs at random today from the RDS archives, and converted them to run in a proper window on Gnome.
It wasn't very difficult. Others might be more so. Won't know until we try.
36. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by CoJaBo Sep 25, 2010
- 2753 views
Actually there are only two things.
set_active_page(2)
set_display_page(2)
Don Cole
You seem to be missing the point-
Operating systems that are not DOS have no concept of display pages. What does your application use display pages for? Think about why it uses them, then think about what you might use in, say, a GUI environment that would implement equivalent functionality.
I looked into writing a comprehensive DOS compatibility layer a while back (to further the argument for DOS support to be ended). However, I ran into an issue that most substantial DOS games and graphics libraries were under a "shareware" license- use as is, but not modify.
As the developers of these programs have mostly long since left, and there was no legal way to further develop those programs, it seemed pretty silly to put any effort into getting them to run. The only way to add new features to them would be a rewrite- but if you are rewriting the app, it would be easier to write it for some other OS, making the idea of a DOS compatibility layer irrefutably pointless.
As newly written apps are going to be for Win/Linux/etc anyway, why would anyone waste time getting older apps that can no longer be developed or modified to execute anymore?
37. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by irv Sep 26, 2010
- 2600 views
We can do whatever we want for our own amusement - whether it be keeping that Model A running, or that old DOS program running.
However, we shouldn't expect Ford to set up a Model A parts production line, or the general community to help us.
On the other hand, if the program in question was one I wrote for a good client - and they were still using it, I would feel somewhat obligated to re-write it to operate on a modern OS. (In fact, I did just that 3 or 4 years ago.)
I did this for three reasons:
- Microsoft is obviously going to abandon DOS altogether eventually, and
- People who have to use the program are SCARED OF DOS and will refuse to believe that it works*
- The client was aware of #1 and #2 above, and agreed to pay for the upgrade.
- We have the same problem with Linux: give a person a Linux version that looks EXACTLY like Windows XP, and they still cry loudly that they "can't work with this", claiming "It's too hard and won't run my programs! - they don't know this, it's just something they heard about Linux somewhere, and they aren't even willing to try to see if it's true.
38. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by Shian_Lee Dec 22, 2010
- 2356 views
- Last edited Jan 01, 2011
Sometimes a professional programmer forget that so many people enjoy programming as a hobby. It always been like this, and it will be like this in the future. After all, most people have other jobs, some serves the Army, some lives on the sea, others are working in the rice fields.
DOS is still a great environment for people who enjoy programming as a hobby. As much as the professional world tries to ignore it.
I still prefer DOS programming as a hobby. I wrote a new editor for programming in DOS, using Euphoria version 3.1, for my self and for others who wants to continue enjoy DOS programming. You may download it from here: http://qe.site90.com
This editor supports programming in Euphoria versions 3.1 and 4.0.
Last word: you don't have to follow others. Enjoy and love what you're doing - it's enough.
Thank you, Shian
39. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by alanjohnoxley Dec 22, 2010
- 2278 views
Who has noticed that the "dos box" is still availible in windows 7, or why?
My job is to support a cross platform batch job sheduler; windows/AIX/linux/mainframe/HP/Sun/AS400 you name it OS.
The *vast* majority of the apps we shedule are invoked by - you guessed it - the command line or equivalent. The apps include java classes, legacy mainframe jobs, SQL, bat files etc etc. Simply because if we launch a GUI, there is nobody there to interact with that GUI, unless we build some automation to interact. The apps are the core central processing of local government, banks, stock exchange, etc.
If the DOS command prompt or equivalent is removed from a OS, the abovementioned will simply not port thier apps. They can't.
The DOS window will be around for some time to come IMHO. Even if the screen specific DOS functions are not.
For myself, I'll use the v3.11 Euphoria when I need to, else it will be the latest & greatest.
Its a pity nobody with enough skill is willing to support the DOS specific functions, for whatever reason.
Cheers
Alan
40. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Dec 22, 2010
- 2311 views
Who has noticed that the "dos box" is still availible in windows 7, or why?
The DOS window will be around for some time to come IMHO. Even if the screen specific DOS functions are not. For myself, I'll use the v3.11 Euphoria when I need to, else it will be the latest & greatest. Its a pity nobody with enough skill is willing to support the DOS specific functions, for whatever reason.
Alan, I think you're confusing the command shell provided by cmd.exe and DOS. Euphoria absolutely supports command line programming. However, these programs are still Windows (the OS, not the GUI widget) programs, as of 4.0.
Matt
41. Re: Version 4.1.4b No Longer Supports Dos
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Dec 22, 2010
- 2294 views
Who has noticed that the "dos box" is still availible in windows 7, or why?
The DOS window will be around for some time to come IMHO. Even if the screen specific DOS functions are not. For myself, I'll use the v3.11 Euphoria when I need to, else it will be the latest & greatest. Its a pity nobody with enough skill is willing to support the DOS specific functions, for whatever reason.
Alan, I think you're confusing the command shell provided by cmd.exe and DOS. Euphoria absolutely supports command line programming. However, these programs are still Windows (the OS, not the GUI widget) programs, as of 4.0.
Right. Tons of my stuff is all command line. None of my stuff relies on old DOS interrupts, 320x280 DOS graphics mode, etc... My Windows hasn't supported that stuff for a long time even. When we mention DOS, we are speaking of the Disk Operating System, not the command prompt.
Jeremy
