So that's 4 compilers you needed: perm floating point numbers and > 64k memory. The biggest problems were things like makefiles, as the timestamps were to the nearest minute iirc...
ISTR the results were pretty reliable, tho' On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:45:57 +1300 Andy George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > >On Friday 27 October 2006 08:06, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > > > > >>>Just in case someone's interested. FWIW, this means you can write 16 bit > >>>DOS applications in Linux. > >>> > >>> > >>Uhmm, why would anyone would want to do that? > >> > >> > > > >Simply because the licence for DOS/Win-3.1 is transferable machine to > >machine. > >e.g. if you have a time-tested and prooven DOS app running on 10,000 > >machines > >you'd be very interested in being able to write extensions to your app., > >thus > >saving the cost of a complete re-write for Win. to say nothing of the > >non-trivial cost of 10,000 Windows licences. > > > > > > > >>Good riddance to that stuff. > >> > >> > >DOS was stable. > > > > > > > > > > > DOS was a horror story. Worst operating system to drive, learn, or > teach for that matter. Manually installing every driver it needed wasnt > a night of fun, and then when it DID get unstable, it blew EVERYTHING > apart. Dos in itself was as you say stable, but once you start adding > to it, such software as drivers, TSR memory managers, and ::reads up:: > home built apps, it became a nightmare. > > I remember with an involuntary cringe the 486 days... DOS 6.22/Windows > 3.11/and for the brave of heart OS/2 days > > It's a mongrel. > > Andy
