[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Woody on 486 problem

Hash: SHA1

On 02/15/07 21:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 02/15/07 20:31, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Remember when? I have a machine which I use on a regular
>>> basis which runs MSDOS just fine. I use it on that same
>>> 486 with 16MB of RAM, of which MSDOS actually only uses
>>> 1MB. Who needs to remember when? I can remember now!
>> So, what GUI do you use?
> Eh? With MSDOS? No gooey stuff in there!

Well, there was GEM, plus TUIs like DesqView.

But you can't be using it just for MS-DOS; what's the point of
having 16MB RAM if all yo do is run non-extended DOS?

>>> If you want to remember when, I developed serious software
>>> on a machine with 64 KB (yes, KILO bytes) of RAM+ROM total,
>>> and thought I was in heaven to have so much memory. That
>>> was a dual-disc machine: two 8 inch floppies of 512 KB each,
>>> no hard drive.
>> Never used floppy disks, but I had a couple of CP/M KayPros with
>> 380KB minifloppy drives.  Damned fine machines those were.
> You sure that isn't 360KB? The 5 1/4 floppies used in those days
> were multiples of 90KB. SSSD was 90KB, SSDD was 180KB, and
> DSDD was 360KB.

Nope.  That was the IBM PC format.

The same DSDD minifloppy formatted on a KayPro would hold 380KB.

You should remember that all the CPM machines had their own special

>>> I created a multi-tasking RTOS running 16 apps at the same
>>> time for a security monitoring system on that machine. The
>>> processor was an Intel 8085.
>> How did you keep them from stepping on each other?  You wrote the
>> apps in asm?
> The whole shebang was assembler. I used MAC, and then RMAC when
> things got too big to make a single assembly file reasonable.
> I used CP/M for development, but when it was all running, of
> course, it was just itself. The apps didn't step on each other,
> because they didn't access memory which didn't belong to them.

How did you prevent it?  Good programming?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: