Three C questions

[Syren Baran]

Hello

I am seeking the best way (speed and portability) to program
mode 13h (320 x 200 256 colors), and mode X.

asm{
mov AX,13h
int 10h
}
Mode X is more complicated, though, providing 4*64K of video ram at
A000h in 4 bit planes.

What are your suggestions. Do I have to write my own C and ASM
routines
to do Mode 13h and Mode X? I could not find an updated BGI driver
from Borland.

Check the book PC-Intern from Michael Tischler, it should answer all
questions you could have about low level vga coding (and a lot you
wouldnt even have considered youself) and features really good code samples.

 

[Syren Baran]

Check the book PC-Intern from Michael Tischler, it should answer all

Sorry, the name is Tischer. Version 3 of the book is probably the best.

 

[CBFalconer]

I think you should relax. If this was the case, in
undeveloped/under development countries, then we would not need
the "one laptop per child" project.

I think the child will have problems hauling about that system. It
probably weighs at least 60 pounds, and has a fairly large and
heavy CRT display.

 

[Regan Revised]

Ah, the hazard of answering off-topic posts...

That modification to config.sys won't do with those old Borland
compilers.

Jack Klein on windows, folks. Thanks for your money.
--

Regan R.


Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car salesman.
-- H L Mencken, describing the Christian author Ray Comfort.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Try to install one of those Linux mini distributions.

Not even a minilinux will run in 16MB ram - I've just wasted a weekend
trying to recycle an old dell laptop with 64MB memory. Sure, I can get
DSL running - but usably? No...

 

[Randy Howard]

Not even a minilinux will run in 16MB ram

I find this hard to believe. SysVR4 would run quite well, including a
full X11R4 and Motif window manager in 16MB of RAM (or less). Surely
you should be able to get linux running with a minimal window manager,
no optional packages, etc. the same way.

Aha.. here's proof.

TinyLinux: Requirements: i386 of better, 8MB RAM minimum.
http://tiny.seul.org/en/

So much for that theory. I used it once years ago (or a distro with
the same name) for a project where Linux need to run out of a CF flash
module, back before SSDs were even a dream.

- I've just wasted a weekend

trying to recycle an old dell laptop with 64MB memory. Sure, I can get
DSL running - but usably? No...

Maybe you could hire someone to help you.

 

[Willem]

Randy wrote:
) On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:40:39 -0600, Mark McIntyre wrote
)> - I've just wasted a weekend
)> trying to recycle an old dell laptop with 64MB memory. Sure, I can get
)> DSL running - but usably? No...
)
) Maybe you could hire someone to help you.

I guess the major problem is getting a web browser running comfortably.
Starting a fresh copy of Mozilla (not the leanest of browsers, I admit)
shows it eats over 100MB right off the bat. Showing a blank page.

SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Randy Howard]

I guess the major problem is getting a web browser running comfortably.
Starting a fresh copy of Mozilla (not the leanest of browsers, I admit)
shows it eats over 100MB right off the bat. Showing a blank page.

Perhaps that can be traced to the use of a suspect xmalloc() wrapper.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I find this hard to believe. SysVR4 would run quite well,

Heck, if I go back far enough I can run it in virtually no memory at
all. I occasionally fire up V5 on my PDP11 emulator just for kicks. I
could probably run OpenVMS on it too...

including a
full X11R4 and Motif window manager in 16MB of RAM (or less). Surely
you should be able to get linux running with a minimal window manager,
no optional packages, etc. the same way.

Without optional packages its completely useless on a laptop. Sure I can
get it running - with a severely broken GUI, no wordprocessor, a
horribly maimed browser, and with more swapping than Saturday with Noel.

Aha.. here's proof.

TinyLinux: Requirements: i386 of better, 8MB RAM minimum.
http://tiny.seul.org/en/

So much for that theory.

Tried it, no dice. For one thing, where do they expect me to get twelve
floppies? I haven't use these since the iMac came out.

- I've just wasted a weekend

Maybe you could hire someone to help you.

Feel free to drop round and do it for me.... The only one that reliably
worked on my dell was DSL. With just the bare min of apps running, it
takes about 8MB. Load up any app at all and you're into swap-city.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Feel free to drop round and do it for me.... The only one that reliably
worked on my dell was DSL. With just the bare min of apps running, it
takes about 8MB. Load up any app at all and you're into swap-city.

Are you talking about using X.Org? The fellow with "16 MB of RAM and a
200 MHZ processor" is running DOS and ancient borland compilers.

I suppose he can run an uptodate Linux in console mode and use a recent
GCC along with some simple console editor like nano, joe, or others.

 

[jacob navia]

Are you talking about using X.Org? The fellow with "16 MB of RAM and a
200 MHZ processor" is running DOS and ancient borland compilers.

I suppose he can run an uptodate Linux in console mode and use a recent
GCC along with some simple console editor like nano, joe, or others.

This message is being posted through my linux gateway.

It is a vintage 1995 pentium 1 computer, with 32MB of RAM and
two disks of 7 and 11 GB.

It has been working since TWELVE years, each day since I bought it.
Running now:

[root@gateway root]# uname -a
Linux gateway 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
[root@gateway root]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.2 2.96-0.76mdk)
[root@gateway root]# vmstat
procs memory swap io system
cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us
sy id
0 0 0 4064 3456 5132 7772 1 1 28 5 117 25 2
1 97

Those computers were really well done. Now, they last exactly the
same time that the guarantee.

And I can compile stuff in the gateway, I developed the starting version
of lcc-win for linux, and when I saw that it was feasible I passed to
the old machine of my daughter. Using Linux that was a good development
system.

Of course, no X windows in any of those machines. The gateway has X
windows, but it is a little bit slow although enough to run an
xterm.

I develop there in vi+gdb+gcc. Anyway with X windows I would use
the same tools. I can open several ssh windows into the
gateway from my windows machine, so I have essentially all I need
from X windows: multiple windows for multiple xterms.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Are you talking about using X.Org? The fellow with "16 MB of RAM and a
200 MHZ processor" is running DOS and ancient borland compilers.

I suppose he can run an uptodate Linux in console mode and use a
recent GCC along with some simple console editor like nano, joe, or
others.

This message is being posted through my linux gateway.

It is a vintage 1995 pentium 1 computer, with 32MB of RAM and
two disks of 7 and 11 GB.

It has been working since TWELVE years, each day since I bought it.
Running now:

[root@gateway root]# uname -a
Linux gateway 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
[root@gateway root]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.2 2.96-0.76mdk)
[root@gateway root]# vmstat
procs memory swap io system
cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us
sy id
0 0 0 4064 3456 5132 7772 1 1 28 5 117 25 2
1 97

Those computers were really well done. Now, they last exactly the
same time that the guarantee.

And I can compile stuff in the gateway, I developed the starting version
of lcc-win for linux, and when I saw that it was feasible I passed to
the old machine of my daughter. Using Linux that was a good development
system.

Of course, no X windows in any of those machines. The gateway has X
windows, but it is a little bit slow although enough to run an
xterm.

I develop there in vi+gdb+gcc. Anyway with X windows I would use
the same tools. I can open several ssh windows into the
gateway from my windows machine, so I have essentially all I need
from X windows: multiple windows for multiple xterms.

That's nice, perhaps you can upgrade to a more recent Linux version.

 

[Randy Howard]

[root@gateway root]# uname -a
Linux gateway 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
[root@gateway root]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.2 2.96-0.76mdk)

That's nice, perhaps you can upgrade to a more recent Linux version.

If it works, why should he?

 

[Flash Gordon]

Randy Howard wrote, On 21/01/08 01:26:

[root@gateway root]# uname -a
Linux gateway 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
[root@gateway root]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.2 2.96-0.76mdk)

That's nice, perhaps you can upgrade to a more recent Linux version.

If it works, why should he?

Because it might have unpatched vulnerabilities, and being a gateway
machine one assumes it is exposed on the internet.

This is all OT of course, as was the earlier discussion about Linux
versions running in 16MB of RAM.

 

[CJ]

User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)

This message is being posted through my linux gateway.

It is a vintage 1995 pentium 1 computer, with 32MB of RAM and
two disks of 7 and 11 GB.

Wow, pretty impressive that you can run Windows in a VM on that thing!

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Wow, pretty impressive that you can run Windows in a VM on that thing!

Through a linux gateway, not from one...

Bye, Jojo

 

[Randy Howard]

Randy Howard wrote, On 21/01/08 01:26:

jacob navia wrote:
[root@gateway root]# uname -a
Linux gateway 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
[root@gateway root]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.2 2.96-0.76mdk)
That's nice, perhaps you can upgrade to a more recent Linux version.

If it works, why should he?

Because it might have unpatched vulnerabilities, and being a gateway
machine one assumes it is exposed on the internet.

Then that would be a mahhine that /doesn't/ work.

This is all OT of course, as was the earlier discussion about Linux
versions running in 16MB of RAM.

Which was also OT.

 

[jacob navia]

I have thought about that, but there is no ftp, no telnet,
no services, no users (besides root) and no remote access
allowed for anyone but root. It has a firewall, and the
exposed surface is minimal really.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 21/01/08 14:00:

Randy Howard wrote:

I wrote the following, not Randy. Randy did not write any of what you
quoted. Please don't strip attributions for people you are responding to
and be especially careful when you are responding to one persons
comments quoted by another.

I have thought about that, but there is no ftp, no telnet,
no services, no users (besides root) and no remote access
allowed for anyone but root. It has a firewall, and the
exposed surface is minimal really.

That is no excuse. In fact, it shows you know too little about security
to be running such a machine. If you new enough to run such a machine
you would know that sometimes the IP stack itself has a vulnerability,
or the packet filter does, etc. Just to give one example
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2001-084.html

If you want to discus this further then comp.security.firewalls would be
the place to go.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia wrote, On 21/01/08 14:00:

I wrote the following, not Randy. Randy did not write any of what you
quoted. Please don't strip attributions for people you are responding to
and be especially careful when you are responding to one persons
comments quoted by another.


That is no excuse. In fact, it shows you know too little about security
to be running such a machine. If you new enough to run such a machine
you would know that sometimes the IP stack itself has a vulnerability,
or the packet filter does, etc. Just to give one example
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2001-084.html

I have a kernel from 2002, and I am not taking that machine
down anyway.

I think I am emotionally attached to it, as we get attached to things
that we use for dozens of years. It represents a kind of quality,
of simplicity that I will never find again in the new machines and
the new bloated kernels of linux.

Anyway I do not see what a hacker would find in that machine.
Ther is no personal data, not any business data... and
if it is used to start some attack elsewhere is not good
since I take it regularly down and up, several times a day
actually, so it is not good for establishing some base.