Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 16 Feb 2007 09:45 In article <er49e9$8qk_004(a)s897.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <er33t7$8jq$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <be273$45d50d69$49ecf9d$20196(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>None of the has anything to do with the OS biz. >> >> >>We just had another wonderful experience with XP. Characters pumped into >>the serial port may take up to 5 seconds before a DOS application running >>under XP gets to see them. > >I would expect that. Why aren't you expecting that? > >> Most of them eventually come through. >> >>Tomorrow, we may try it with "dosemu" to see how well that works. > ><shrug> Change the threshold number that causes the DOS emulator >to hand over bits. There's gotta be one. I believe that neither XP nor dosemu use a threshold. The delay under XP appears more random. Chances are the timing under XP runs the DOS stuff at a priority level equal to other tasks. There is some task between the DOS stuff and the hardware that runs at some other time and priority. I believe that under dosemu, the serial stream gets checked every time the emulator needs to pretend to access a serial port. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Feb 2007 09:51 In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of later >> versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even very >> later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the stack. > >I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >a go at multitasking dos too. > >I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >freeware and faked multitasking somehow. If you call two tasks "multi", I wrote one that worked quite nicely. It allowed the user interface task to run while disk I/O and printing etc also ran. It was very special purposed so it wouldn't be something to market. It really isn't that hard to create a multitasking system if only one task is allowed to touch a given bit of hardware. Mostly you just have to change the stack pointer and return from the timer interrupt into the other task's context. > > > > > >Bye. > Jasen -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 16 Feb 2007 09:56 jasen wrote: > On 2007-02-13, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > >>>>>I'll repeat it since you're a slow learner: >>>>> >>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>partitions. >>>> >>>> And I repeat: >>>> >>>> You're a goddamned idiot. >>> >>> >>>So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, >>>it is invariably wrong. >> >> You're an idiot. You statement about Linux is absolutely 100% >>WRONG! >> > > > It's a matter of principle not of pragmatism. > > Why pollute a linux machine with some other operating system... Because he insists on taking a sandwich to the banquet?
From: nonsense on 16 Feb 2007 09:59 jasen wrote: > On 2007-02-16, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >>In article <be273$45d50d69$49ecf9d$20196(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>[.....] >> >>>None of the has anything to do with the OS biz. >> >> >>We just had another wonderful experience with XP. Characters pumped into >>the serial port may take up to 5 seconds before a DOS application running >>under XP gets to see them. Most of them eventually come through. >> >>Tomorrow, we may try it with "dosemu" to see how well that works. > > > with the right serial driver it should work well, people were running serial > games in dosemu, dunno all the tricks they employed. Started with a FIFO buffer.
From: nonsense on 16 Feb 2007 10:09
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <er440c$p85$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >>On 2007-02-13, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> > > wrote: > >>>>>>I'll repeat it since you're a slow learner: >>>>>> >>>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>>partitions. >>>>> >>>>> And I repeat: >>>>> >>>>> You're a goddamned idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>>So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, >>>>it is invariably wrong. >>> >>> You're an idiot. You statement about Linux is absolutely 100% >>>WRONG! >>> >> >>It's a matter of principle not of pragmatism. >> >>Why pollute a linux machine with some other operating system... > > > The people who pay you use an OS that you don't. While that's true, the premise remains unchanged. Today hardware is cheap. |