On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Travis Siegel <tsie...@softcon.com> wrote:
>
> I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat
> that if a 32-bit dos could be built that still maintained the backward
> compatibility for those programs that needed it, it would *not* be a bad
> thing, in fact, it'd be embraced wholeheartedly. Of course, the chances of
> that are slim, but if it could be pulled off, freedos would do something no
> other dos has ever managed, and that would sure be a boon.
>
> +1
We in this discussion aren't the first people to question how to
successfully meld the worlds of 32- and 16-bit code while having speed,
flexibility and compatibility. This became an issue way back in the days of
the 386, and so some smart folks have already not only already considered
the problem, but designed the solution and implemented it - right into the
Intel processor! We just have to know its intricacies and use them to our
advantage. The code of the open source DOS/32A extender and the OSDev.org
website would be great starting points for anyone who wanted to undertake
such an endeavor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
