Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.development:975 comp.os.coherent:10186 comp.os.msdos.programmer:23908 comp.os.os2.programmer.porting:190 comp.unix.bsd:12339 comp.unix.programmer:10815
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!pipex!sunic!sics.se!vall!dsv.su.se!patrik
From: patrik@dsv.su.se (Patrik Nyblom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.coherent,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.os2.programmer.porting,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Need advice: Which OS to port to?
Message-ID: <3390@vall.dsv.su.se>
Date: 31 Jul 93 10:57:35 GMT
References: <233o0b$sr9@access.digex.net> <1993Jul28.081737.16319@int-evry.fr>
Sender: newsuser@vall.dsv.su.se
Reply-To: patrik@dsv.su.se (Patrik Nyblom)
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.development
Organization: Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University
Lines: 68
In article <1993Jul28.081737.16319@int-evry.fr>, moreau@etna.int-evry.fr (G. Moreau stagiaire IIe 93) writes:
|> In article <233o0b$sr9@access.digex.net>, kbennett@access.digex.net (Keith R. Bennett) writes:
|> |> I am working on a C++ project which is currently implemented in DOS
|> |> graphics mode (non-Windows). We are looking to change operating
|> |> systems, mainly because of memory limitations, but also because of
|> |> the convenience of multitasking.
|> |>
|> |> I would greatly appreciate any feedback you might have about which
|> |> operating system you feel might be best suited to our situation.
|> |>
|> |> The following alternatives come to mind:
|> |>
|> |> 1) stay with DOS, but use DOS extender (no multitasking here)
|> you can try gnu ( I mean gcc, g++ which includes a DOS extender ) there is even
|> a multitasking library for gnu, but it comes without doc and I did not have
|> time to have a look at it. Otherwise, gnu taker up to 128 Mo Ram + 128 Mo virtual
|> disk, with flat memory model, in 32-bit protected mode. Moreover, it is FREE
|> there are a couple of graphic libraries, which are not bad at all.
Well, I've used gcc on my PC, and I don't find it especially stable. If I
load DOS "high" the PC hangs while compiling (and running larger programs),
also if I "fork" a shell (eg system("command /C dir") or something like it) ,
the dos extender pukes and hang my PC again. Well, I may be using a poor
version (I'm sure using a poor PC...IBM PS/2 with a 386SX :-)) of gcc, but
anyway (This is a broblem I've had in MS DOS 5.x and 6.0) I wouldn't rely
on the DOS version of gcc if I'm to sell the sowtware...
|> |> 2) OS/2
|> if you really have a lot of Ram, why not ?
|> |> 3) Unix/Xenix
|> |> 4) Coherent
|> |> 5) QNX
How abot Windows? OK you have to rewrite the graphical interface, but it's
cheap and used by so many people. It is possible to write quite useful
multitasking with the timer functions (I've made it in TurboPascal).
I would NOT consider OS/2, rather Windows NT if I could afford it :-)
Otherwise Unix/Xenix sounds good, but I'm afraid you have to rewrite your
graphical routines, at least in some ways. Well, bios is the same, but DOS
isn't there.
|> |> We will most likely be running our application on a single 486
|> |> machine. Multitasking/Multiuser might be useful so that we can call
|> |> into the machine to do remote diagnostics, maintenance, etc., and so
|> |> that we can be doing reporting while the system is running the main
|> |> application.
|> |> The system must be reliable.
|> that's ok
Well...
|> |> We need to minimize the amount of effort required to port our system.
|> |> I expect a large part of this effort will be the time it will take
|> |> us to familiarize ourselves with the new environment.
|> still dos, this shouls not cause many troubles
I dont know what will happen if you fiddle with the interrupt handlers, that
may be what's causing the dos extender to hang...
|> |> Programming tools should be available.
|> awk, bison (alias yacc), flex (alias lex), make, 32-bit debugger, g++
|> and Cie. do you really need more ?
My debugger is not symbolic, is there a version of gcc with a symbolic
(source code level) debugger? Then WERE can I get this version?
|> |>
|> |> Cost is a factor, including run time licensing.
|> it is TOTALLY FREE.
Well, it's not all free, if you're charging for your software, the DOS extender
is NOT free. As long as your software is free, the extender is free, but
otherwise, you are charged 5% or something...
Please observe that i'm using DJ Delories gcc for DOS (the latest version
I could find...). If there is another better DOS-version of gcc, please tell
(mail) me I'm wrong! I would really like a more stable version!
/patrik@dsv.su.se