At 12:05 AM 7/23/2011, Rugxulo wrote: >Hi, > I recognize your name from random posts, but I can't place it. >Well, just saying, you must be valuable (in general)! ;-) Well, the later must be a matter of opinion, seems some folks don't like critical remarks from people rather sticking to the old(true?) way of DOS. I used to be very active here, in an archive, you might find post from me probably going back at least 15 years (give or take)...
>You seem to know more about Clipper than any of us! You'd be the guy >to test / evaluate (old) DOS versions. Here's the only Clipper code I >know of: I am actually not (and never was) a(n active) Clipper programmer, I am just using DOS since January '82, for almost 15 years on a professional basis as software developer first in a software house for enginieering software, later at a developer of a CAD/CAM software (the first to use proteced mode before PharLap offically "invented" the DOS extender) and in close cooperation with companies like PharLap, Qualitas, Metaware, Miro and ELSA and as an OEM software provider for HP, NCR and Compaq... As far as DOS is concerned, I used mainly Pascal (DR Pascal MT+86, Metaware Professional Pascal, various Borland incarnations) and C (DR, Aztec C86, Metaware High C, Borland C/C++) and BASIC (CBASIC, PDS, HP "Rocky Mountain BASIC"), all with a heavy dose as assembler. Clipper was, along with it's "inspiration" dBASE, one of the driving forces in the DOS software development world, it was hard not to come in contact with it back in those days. Same goes for Fortran and (Business)BASIC and a lot of other tools and applications that a lot of people don't want to know about these days anymore... >Like I said, the latest (3.x) BCC55 compile *may* work in real DOS via >WDOSX or HX, but I dunno. DMC may work too, who knows. I don't have tested anything in that regards as my project needed to be resolved fast and the Windows version fit the bill just perfectly the other week. Neither was the application mine nor am I the actual user, it was for client of mine (I work in onsite IT services these days) who got himself a new computer (with Windows 7/64) after his 10 year old workhorse died (at least for him) unexpectedly and he had to realize that this version of Windows wouldn't run his +20 year old Clipper based DOS application anymore. Luckily, he did not only have a meticulous backup of his data but also the source code for his application, problem was just to find a way to get it run on Win7/64. DOSBOX was quickly rules out as it doesn't support parallel port printing and using a VM with FreeDOS was too cumbersome to use for an almost 70 year old car mechanic who gives himself another couple of years before retiring for good... > > Microsoft had at some point bought a xBase product called > > FoxBase/FoxPro, which then evolved into Visual FoxPro until it was > > announced recently that VFP 9.0 (released 2007) will be the last > > incarnation and they are dumping the product as they don't want to go > > through a rewrite to make it 64bit to fit in their Windows 8 and > > beyond roadmap... > >Hmmm? Where'd you hear that? Dumping stuff that isn't 64-bit? As far as Visual FoxPro is concerned, EOL of the whole product and a focus on SQL Server (Express) instead was announced in 2007 in a "Message to the Community (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vfoxpro/bb308952.aspx), a bit more detailed "guts" where spilled in one of the products managers responses to a petition to keep VFP alive or Open Source it (with the later futile from the start IMHO, http://www.masfoxpro.com/Portada). Don't find a link to that response right now... >Personally I have my own theories and wouldn't be too surprised, but >I'm not sure that's the truth. We'll probably see a 32-bit version of >Win8, but by 9 they'll probably dump it (blind guess). Then again, if >Win8 is truly two years away (like rumored), I guess anything's >possible. Release for Windows 8 is more likely to be Fall 2012, so a tad more than a year away. And even today, you have a hard time to get a lot of new computers even with a 32bit version of Windows 7. > > Is there still a need for this? Well, as you folks all are abandoning > > DOS more or less, probably not... :-( > >"You folks" as in FreeDOS?? Or just in general? Not sure what this >means, heh. I admit that DOS developers are very few these days :-( A lot of the folks active here in the past have disappeared, sometimes likely due personal life reasons (which is part of my reason), sometimes due to being driven away (the other part of my reason) by (new) folks showing up and knowing everything better and coming up their own "ultimate" version of a tool/utility/function rather than cooperating with an existing maintainer. And then those folks who never had a clue about what DOS was/is and want to make FreeDOS a "second coming of Linux" with all the fancy GUI, multimedia and web stuff "that everybody needs"... :-( I myself got pretty much scolded a couple of years ago for suggesting that there is now an Open Source 16bit C compiler that even works in FreeDOS without a hitch/tricks (DeSmet C, been around (in a non-ANSI version) longer than Borland C). Everybody just wants to use stuff that has developed into bloatware like OpenWatcom or non-factors as far as DOS goes like NASM. Not to mention that Aztec C is now "freely available" (no source code, no Open Source license though), one of the leading C compilers (not only for DOS) "back in the days", or Digital Mars (for more than a decade aka Datalight C, Zorland C, Zortech C, Zortech C++, Symatec C++). <serious sarcasm on> And then Jim's "cleanup", removing all references and tools for that no source exists or that do not have a "shiny" GPL license or that are not created by the new official pet tools OpenWatcom and NASM. Too many people here just seem not only to want a free lunch but see the cook naked too... :-( DOS is around for almost 30 years now, it's hay days are more than 15 years back. A lot of software, applications, programming tools, utilities that defined those days and have been valuable for a lot of people for a long time are from companies that don't exist anymore or their authors don't show any interest in dealing with it at all anymore. A very few have gone and Open Sourced their stuff, even fewer of those are IMHO "serious" application. Completely locking out all that made out a good part (in ore than one way) of what DOS used to be is IMHO a step in the wrong direction. New stuff for DOS is few and far between, too few people nowadays with the drive to develop for DOS want to deal with it's limitation anymore, rather go the easy way and create a 32bit DOS extender bloatware. That's another point where the lack of real cooperation these days is hurting... <serious sarcasm off> Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Storage Efficiency Calculator This modeling tool is based on patent-pending intellectual property that has been used successfully in hundreds of IBM storage optimization engage- ments, worldwide. Store less, Store more with what you own, Move data to the right place. Try It Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51427378/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
