Screen control functions

[Flash Gordon]

True, but not under windows xp, the system the OP said he
was using.

Therefore what you said was false. DOS has *not* been dead for more than
10 years. If you are talking about XP specifically, that is under 10
years old so you were *still* wrong.

True. I used one yesterday from MAXTOR. It boots
MSDOS (Digital Research) and tests your MAXTOR hard drive.

If it is the Digital Research version then it is DRDOS *not* MSDOS.
There are other versions of DOS as well. However, this agrees with what
I said that you were *wrong* to claim that DOS is dead.

Yes, you can change the emulator behavior with the "shortcut properties"
if I remember correctly, and maybe it emulates that hacks too.

So you were wrong here as well. This is why you should direct posters to
the *correct* group. It is pure chance that a couple of us happen to
know a little more about this that you do. Enough to point out that you
were almost completely wrong and definitely completely wrong about the
points that affect the OP.

AHHHH

Nostalgia is not what it used to be ...

So don't post advice about things you have forgotten (if you ever knew
them). Instead redirect people to appropriate groups where they will
find the *real* experts on the topic when it is not topical here.

 

[jacob navia]

Therefore what you said was false. DOS has *not* been dead for more than
10 years. If you are talking about XP specifically, that is under 10
years old so you were *still* wrong.

MSDOS was dead when windows 95 came out.
Microsoft has discontinued support for it YEARS ago.
Yes, in some embedded systems it goes on, just as the
VAX is somehwere maybe still running, and I do not know if
you know this, but I can run even a PDP11 in emulation
now.

But (I hope) you will agree with me that MSDOS is quite dead since quite
a few years!!!

If it is the Digital Research version then it is DRDOS *not* MSDOS.
There are other versions of DOS as well. However, this agrees with what
I said that you were *wrong* to claim that DOS is dead.

Digital Research still distributes that stuff, and it is still used.
Besides, the PDP 11 emulator is still running, and I can emulate
an Apple ][ in the Mac. Software never dies.

But in *some* sense, the PDP 11 *is dead* !!!

So you were wrong here as well. This is why you should direct posters to
the *correct* group. It is pure chance that a couple of us happen to
know a little more about this that you do. Enough to point out that you
were almost completely wrong and definitely completely wrong about the
points that affect the OP.



So don't post advice about things you have forgotten (if you ever knew
them). Instead redirect people to appropriate groups where they will
find the *real* experts on the topic when it is not topical here.

The advice I gave the OP was to get a more up-to-date system and
environment. In my first answer said

> Get a better compiler

That stills tands and it is not wrong.

 

[Keith Thompson]

MSDOS was dead when windows 95 came out.
Microsoft has discontinued support for it YEARS ago. [...]
Yes, in some embedded systems it goes on, just as the
VAX is somehwere maybe still running, and I do not know if
you know this, but I can run even a PDP11 in emulation
now.

But (I hope) you will agree with me that MSDOS is quite dead since
quite a few years!!!

I will neither agree nor disagree, because I do not care. The
question has nothing to do with the C programming language, and is
therefore off topic in this newsgroup.

 

[OziRus]

Thanks "Bill". I got it.

Bill (Your second names isn't Gates I presume ?

You are a TRUE MSDOS HACKER (tm)

This is actually the reason!!!!

Congratulations Bill.

jacob

 

[Kenneth Brody]

OziRus wrote: [...]

char far *vp=(char far *)0xB0000000;

[...]
You have to run under MSDOS, not windows XP.

Contrary to what *many* people think, MSDOS is dead since more than 10
years, I do not remember exactly when was it, maybe 1995.

And, contrary to that, Windows 95, 98, and Me all run on top of MS-DOS,
despite what Microsoft would have liked you to believe.

Contrary to what many people think, the "DOS WINDOW" is just
an EMULATION of text mode msdos, with the same commands,
etc.

The MSDOS emulation will NOT emulate the writing to screen memory,
as it seems.

Yes it does, _if_ you are running a 16-bit MS-DOS program.

<drift mode="even further OT">

In a console window, type "debug". Then, at the debugger's "-" prompt,
type "f b800:0 l400 41 04". (Note that "l400" is "el four zero zero",
and "41" is "four one".) The first 6-1/2 lines will fill with red "A"s.
(Character 0x41, attribute 0x04.)

Also, note that the address is "b800:0000", not "b000:0000" as the
code from the OP used. If the compiler is generating 16-bit real-mode
executables, then changing to 0xb8000000 may "fix" the problem.

</drift>

[...]

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia <[email protected]> writes:

I will neither agree nor disagree, because I do not care. The
question has nothing to do with the C programming language, and is
therefore off topic in this newsgroup.

I do care and I know, but I agree this is the wrong place for it. I've
taken it to email.