中国DOS联盟

Horror, the predecessors are making motherboards by themselves, it's extremely powerful

Wow, I read from the first floor to the bottom, all are great minds! @-------@ Learning here!

In fact, DOS is very important because it is closely integrated with hardware!

It's really amazing. When I started playing with computers, I only heard of DOS.

Originally posted by xxxxzzzz at 2008-1-18 02:36 PM:
Up, I've been developing under DOS, using allegro + djgpp, looking forward to communication. QQ: 729504816

Private communication is not as good as public discussion, everyone benefits

Since it's working under DOS, can you show the bottom of your tools and software development?

Originally posted by zxg1234 at 2008-1-10 18:25:
At least under DOS, controlling hardware is much more convenient than under WINDOWS. Also, in terms of real-time performance for embedded systems, it is also better than controlling with WINDOWS. The system resource usage is also much smaller than WINDOWS. I am in the textile machinery field...

UCDOS can cause irregular and unstable phenomena in real-time control. I have seen many CNC machine tools and special machines using WINDOWS, and I have never seen when it didn't work. WINDOWS can also use I/O and can access hardware configuration memory spaces above 1M. It's just that the painful period of completely switching from DOS to WINDOWS takes about 2 years. Actually, the main things of windows are INT 1EH and the main things of DOS are INT 21H, roughly the same. The real kernel-like ones are HAL.DLL and NTOSKRNL.EXE (these vary depending on ACPI). The problem is that there are very few new device drivers for DOS (and even if there are drivers, they are not perfect). DOS almost has to complete the drivers for many devices all by itself, such as printers, especially USB printers.

As for controlling hardware, if you don't use an operating system, directly writing the program to the MBR is more convenient, and there are fewer reentrancy problems. Data is directly written to the hard disk sectors using INT 13H, and display is directly written to the screen. We use the operating system mainly to use its function calls. So, what useful function calls does DOS provide? :lol:

Last edited by netwinxp on 2008-5-6 at 05:34 PM ]

This post should be topped! I learned something tonight!
Task completed, go to sleep~!

Long time no see. I didn't expect my post to get so many replies.

To express my gratitude to everyone, and since I've been sorting out some old stuff recently, I've posted all the articles from my newly opened blog. I hope they can be helpful to everyone.

There will be more articles in the near future and beyond. Please follow my blog:

http://hengch.blog.163.com

There is an article about in-depth hardware interrupts under CWSDPMI and an article about BT878 programming being sorted out. Stay tuned

Well!
If China could have more talents like the "thread starter" who are proficient in both software and hardware, that would be great!

Using a 200 CPU, the real-time performance of image acquisition is extremely good. What else is there to say?

For those doing embedded systems, if a task can be done with a microcontroller, try not to use a PC for it. If it can be done with DOS, try not to use Linux for it. Windows? Forget it...

Systems, programming languages, etc., I don't think there is a distinction between good and bad. The key is what they can do and what you want to do with them!! Using the most concise method to achieve the most satisfactory effect is what every programmer pursues!! As for others, I can only say it's a matter of personal preference!! Of course, from a commercial perspective, the lowest cost, the best versatility, and maintainability cannot be ignored either!!

Using a Windows platform for telecom-grade equipment is probably a case of asking for trouble.