Windoze Versions - Etrunker/Trunker

[BANDIT]

Aw heck here is the link.

http://newdos.yginfo.net/msdos71/index.htm#msfv

 

[pro92b]

That's a Chinese hack of MS-DOS. It is done well but you give them too much credit. NTFS4DOS is a product of Sysinternals. USB in DOS is an iffy proposition at best. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. Drivers are from Panasonic, Iomega, Datoptic, Cypress, Novac, and Medialogic. The Chinese had no part in writing any of the USB files.

 

[remedy44]

You need to start in the cmd prompt run it like this trunker.exe com1 or what ever com port you are useing

 

[crayon]

Just to add to the dos comments. There is a dos 7.1 available and it will recognize usb and read NTFS... Do a search...

No search needed. I've already used it. pro92b's comments sums it up quite accurately so no need kick that horse.

If anyone feels the need to hoist a banner to champion the command line .. it better have a hash symbol on it :wink: else your just a wannabe.

 

[kd7rto]

Ah yes, those "greater things". A certralized registry (completely unnecessary). Now when there is a glitch, you have to reinstall everything, OS and programs. Bring a lunch. Also, we now have a GUI interface, rather than a command line. Instead of the user telling the computer what to do, the computer tells the user what he can do.

"Pesky expanded memory" issues? All you had to do was add a few lines to config.sys, the that 640K ram limitation then ceased to be a barrier. Continued development of the operating system would have eliminated the issue altogether. No need to scrap a stable OS over such trivial matters.

All you have really proven is that Windows is a resourse hog. You would never need 120 Gig for a DOS box (nor would you need the processing power of a P4). As for Windows, I run two drives, a 20 Gig and a 60 Gig, and it probably won't be long before I need to upgrade, again.

And what do today's programs do, that yesterday's did not? Well, they are getting bigger and bigger in size. They send information over the internet without telling the user that they are sending, what they are sending, or who they are sending to. And they have slicker graphics.

Greater things, indeed.

I see only one reason why someone would be a Windows apologist. A software engineer can make some serious money today off non-technical idiots who would have been intimidated by a C:\ prompt.

 

[SCPD]

Ah yes, those "greater things". A centralized registry (completely unnecessary).

But very useful for storing shared configuration data. Even provides a consistent API for accessing that shared data. No, not every program should stuff private settings into the registry - but that's the program's fault, not the OS.

Also, we now have a GUI interface, rather than a command line. Instead of the user telling the computer what to do, the computer tells the user what he can do.

Paraphrase: a book told the user what to type. (How'd you learn all those commands?). Now the information appears on the screen at the time and in the context needed.

"Pesky expanded memory" issues? All you had to do was add a few lines to config.sys, the 640K ram limitation then ceased to be a barrier.

Not true. It required extra programming effort and each memory allocation was limited to 64k or 16k chunks. Read the old LIM 4.X spec. If you were lucky, you had a DOS extender that allowed the computer to switch between 1GB+ addressing and segmented addressing expected by DOS. (BTW, Trunker and Etrunk do this.) The burden of providing a DOS extender fell upon the application, DOS did not do this for you.

Continued development of the operating system would have eliminated the issue altogether. No need to scrap a stable OS over such trivial matters.

DOS was never an operating system. It was a file system and loader. Most of the services provided by an operating system were absent from DOS.

All you have really proven is that Windows is a resourse hog. You would never need 120 Gig for a DOS box (nor would you need the processing power of a P4). As for Windows, I run two drives, a 20 Gig and a 60 Gig, and it probably won't be long before I need to upgrade, again.

Then don't. Run something else.

And what do today's programs do, that yesterday's did not?

With each new version of software, there's generally a "README" file or "WHAT's NEW" document describing the nifty new features that coaxed you into buying the new version.

Well, they are getting bigger and bigger in size.

That's because they can. You can't drive an 18 wheeler semi over a footpath (well, not for very long - and the joggers might complain).

They send information over the internet without telling the user that they are sending, what they are sending, or who they are sending to.

Do your due dilligence ... if it does this ... drop it for something else.

And they have slicker graphics.

Bingo ... try editing a 24 bit per pixel file (or any other multimedia content) using a hex editor in DOS.

I see only one reason why someone would be a Windows apologist. A software engineer can make some serious money today off non-technical idiots who would have been intimidated by a C:\ prompt.

Been there. Done that. I make no apologies for DOS or Windows. I code to the customers' specifications. You bought Windows (or a PC with Windows pre-installed). Don't like it? You can always install something else over it (or buy a Mac).

-rick

 

[DonS]

Instead of the user telling the computer what to do, the computer tells the user what he can do.

I tell my computer exactly what to do, and it does it. You can have the same power, your hardware or OS notwithstanding: get yourself a compiler and/or assembler.

That aside, I've not yet experienced a situation where the GUI, built-in "command prompt", or a bash shell, by virtue of their user interfaces, prevented me from doing something that the DOS command line allowed.

You would never need 120 Gig for a DOS box (nor would you need the processing power of a P4).

I most certainly would, if I wanted to use my DOS box to house and play my 3500 10MB MP3s, while I'm editing, viewing, or printing any of my 1500 19MB digital pictures, editing, viewing, or burning to DVD any of my 20 13GB-per-hour digital videos, or using my GPS to navigate with my 6GB of installed map data. None of these tasks inherently require Windows (or any other GUI) - the supporting software could've been written for any multi-tasking, 32-bit version of "DOS" that supported the required 160+ GB of disk space.

My adoption of various versions of Windows never indicated to me that Windows was driving the disk and CPU requirements (in case that's what is meant by "All you have really proven is that Windows is a resourse hog. You would never need 120 Gig for a DOS box (nor would you need the processing power of a P4)."). When I started using Windows 3.1, it was on a 25MHz 386 with 16MB of RAM - that was the machine on which I'd been running DOS for quite some time. Windows ran quite nicely. 3.1 was then replaced with a beta Windows 95. Still ran fine. I ran Win 95 on all of my hardware up to a 600 MHz P3, until I started running Win 2k. Ran great, as did XP. I then upgraded the hardware to my current 3 GHz P4 with 1GB of RAM. I've not had to upgrade my hardware so that I could run a new version of Windows - the OS has always run fine on my current hardware. For me, Windows has merely expanded to fill the available space/power. I see nothing wrong with that, as that space/power would be wasted otherwise (yes, I could fill my hard drive with the aforementioned files, but my full install of XP, along with all the files installed to the Windows dir by 200+ apps, occupies less than 1% of my hard disk space - Windows is hardly the reason for my large hard drives).

I see only one reason why someone would be a Windows apologist.

Windows had to exist, or the x86-based PC industry, would've eventually ceased to exist (perhaps MS could've survived, in a much smaller incarnation, selling Mac apps). The GUI was already here, and the masses (i.e. the "non-technical idiots" below) would've gone with the competition that supplied it. Heck, if Apple hadn't created the Mac, the masses might've gone with *nix (X was in development in '84, and released in '88 ) - except that the masses likely couldn't afford *nix.

A software engineer can make some serious money today off non-technical idiots who would have been intimidated by a C:\ prompt

.
1. Those non-technical idiots are the bread and butter of the PC, OS, and software industry.
2. We (the software engineers) can also write (and use!) programs that present data, information, and controls in a graphical or aural format without having to supply 75 drivers for all the various video and audio devices out there. Back in DOS days, any such program had discrete drivers for the most popular video and audio cards. Graphics programs that I wrote in those days were either tailored for a specific piece of hardware, or crippled by only using the greatest common factor (i.e. either mono or 640x480 CGA). Sure, hardware vendors could've agreed on a standard method for creating their own drivers, drivers that advertised their capabilities and presented common APIs to the application writer, then supplied those drivers with their hardware, but they didn't. IIRC, as close as they came to that was when some (most?) made their sound cards "SoundBlaster-compatible". Windows enforces the driver requirement (or, at least, attempts to). Now, people buy a graphics card from a reputable vendor, plug it in, install the driver from the supplied CD, and they're off.
3. GUI exists, employer and customers demand apps that use the GUI, I write apps that use the GUI. Without GUI, if employer or customer demands graphical app, see #2 above.

"Pesky expanded memory" issues? All you had to do was add a few lines to config.sys, the that 640K ram limitation then ceased to be a barrier. Continued development of the operating system would have eliminated the issue altogether. No need to scrap a stable OS over such trivial matters.

It would've required a complete rewrite of the OS, not just "continued development". DOS was a 16-bit animal, coded in assembly, that could not address the memory we're talking about. In the 16-bit world, we programmers had to jump through hoops just to get beyond 64 kibibytes. When you mention config.sys edits, I presume you're talking about himem.sys. That still didn't let you get to all the memory - you had to page it in and out. Or, maybe you're referring to a "DOS extender", such as Phar Lap or DOS/4G. That still requires/uses 16-bit DOS, switching back and forth between real and protected modes, moving data around, etc., causing performance hits (especially if you make a lot of DOS/BIOS/TSR calls). Ironically, [more recent versions of] Phar Lap does precisely what the old Windows 95 kernel did, you just didn't have a GUI - and you can strip the GUI from Windows 95.

If anyone feels the need to hoist a banner to champion the command line .. it better have a hash symbol on it :wink: else your just a wannabe.

If you haven't changed your shell prompt to something other than the hash, like maybe PS1=$'\\[\\033]0;\\w\\007\n\\033[32m\\]\\u@\\h \\[\\033[33m\\w\\033[0m\\]\n$ ', you're a wannabe :wink:

-Don

 

[DonS]

further OT (sorry for the continued thread hijack)

While browsing new posts in other forums, I couldn't resist...

Command line: breadboarding an LTR slicer circuit

GUI: asking for an assembled (or etched PCB for) LTR slicer

:wink:

 

[crayon]

Now when there is a glitch, you have to reinstall everything, OS and programs. Bring a lunch. Also, we now have a GUI interface, rather than a command line. Instead of the user telling the computer what to do, the computer tells the user what he can do.

Nawwww n6orz, you got it all wrong buddy. That is not how it works in the real world. However, I belive I am beginning to see the source of your angst. I think that you got behind on the learning curve and have fallen victim to the improper management of your pc.

On a daily basis, I speak the languages of Novell Netware, Microsoft, Sun Solaris, HP-Unix, AS-400, and several flavors of Linux (RH, Slackware, and SuSe), and not to mention some BSD's. To dismiss something, out of hand, is being naive.

Each system has it weakness, but each one also has it strengths. Personally, I ever saw another AS-400 system it would be too soon! :lol: Does anyone here want to have a moment of silence for Banyan Vines??

With that being said .. lets get you up to speed on the proper administration of your pc!

Rule number One, just because you can install it does not mean you should. What I am talking about is the gazillion programs out there that fall under the heading of "awww, isnt that cute". I will be the first to argue that a home pc does not fit the same role of an office workstation. To a casual user, a home pc should be a source of entertainment. If a program is engageing and is relaxing .. heck ya .. install it, run it, play it till the cows come home.

As with everthing there always a trade off, so when you see a purple gorilla bouncing across your screen, you should ask yourself, "Do I really need Boniz Buddy?" If you do not know how a program will affect your machine, then and only then, is the machine telling you what to do.

GOOD GREIF!!! I just looked up and saw this thread is not in the RR Tavern! ack! Can you say offtopic? yeah.

In the past, I have posted intructions on quick tuneups here and here. (Norton System Works is for sissies and is NOT needed to keep your computer in top shape)

If that does not give your computer a kick in the pants, google for blackviper's w2k services and The Elder Geek's.

HTH's

 

[crayon]

If you haven't changed your shell prompt to something other than the hash, like maybe PS1=$'\\[\\033]0;\\w\\007\n\\033[32m\\]\\u@\\h \\[\\033[33m\\w\\033[0m\\]\n$ ', you're a wannabe :wink:

I totally suck.

 

[loumaag]

Ah yes, those "greater things". A centralized registry (completely unnecessary).

But very useful for storing shared configuration data. Even provides a consistent API for accessing that shared data. No, not every program should stuff private settings into the registry - but that's the program's fault, not the OS.

Hmm, since this was going into the ditch I was going to avoid it, but Rick I feel like I should remind you that MS wants you to store every setting in the registry and only includes the ability to read (and write) INI files as a backward comatability issue. I don't agree with it, but that be the case. :lol:

Oh, and crayon. I'll trade you AS-400 experience for System-34/36/38 experience. :wink:

 

[SCPD]

Rick I feel like I should remind you that MS wants you to store every setting in the registry and only includes the ability to read (and write) INI files as a backward comatability issue. I don't agree with it, but that be the case. :lol:

IF you dig up old copies of Microsoft MIND, stuffing everything into the registry was very fashionable circa 1996. When M$ began unveiling dot-NET (circa 2001?), guys like Don Box have come out against this practice. M$ has promoted other means for storing user options in their dot-NET environment.

The easiest program to un-install is one that leaves no registry entries behind.

Oh, and crayon. I'll trade you AS-400 experience for System-34/36/38 experience. :wink:

Guess I'm stuck with my Cyber 170 (with FORTRAN IV, COMPASS Assembler, and J&W CDC Pascal) experience.

-rick

 

[Pro-95]

Hmm, I'll through in some HP1000 and Data General to the mix.

I still love the HPIB.

 

[kd7rto]

While browsing new posts in other forums, I couldn't resist...

Command line: breadboarding an LTR slicer circuit

GUI: asking for an assembled (or etched PCB for) LTR slicer

Let's continue this analogy.

WINDOWS: An incredibly complex circuit, plug and play, requiring little user action or intelligence to setup. Not easily tinkered with or altered to do things it's original designer did not intend it to do. Requires frequent power cycles to clear glitches, and you can expect a catastrophic failure anywhere between 6 and 24 months after placing it in service.

 

[loumaag]

The easiest program to un-install is one that leaves no registry entries behind.

Oh, I agree with this statement 100%. I guess I will have to break down and get newer development stuff. I am still working with VStudio 6. :?

 

[AZScanner]

The easiest program to un-install is one that leaves no registry entries behind.

Oh, I agree with this statement 100%. I guess I will have to break down and get newer development stuff. I am still working with VStudio 6. :?

I still use VS6 also. I have dot NUT also and I just hate it. YUCK! But it's the wave of the future so I'm gonna have to learn it. :roll: I like VB6. Why couldn't they just leave a good thing alone??? :evil:

-AZ

 

[DonS]

I still use VS6 also. I have dot NUT also and I just hate it. YUCK! But it's the wave of the future so I'm gonna have to learn it. :roll:

Why? What does .NET do that VS6 doesn't? I haven't yet come across a Windows programming task that I could not accomplish using the assembler, C/C++ compiler, and linker included with VS6.

I like VB6.

Yikes.

EDIT (per crayon's post in the Tavern): "Yikes" becomes "Yikes "

 

[loumaag]

Why? What does .NET do that VS6 doesn't? I haven't yet come across a Windows programming task that I could not accomplish using the assembler, C/C++ compiler, and linker included with VS6.

Well, this may well be true, not sure mind you. But what I am aware of is that the KB and technical articles dealing with the VS6 products are slowly becoming harder to find on the MS site. <sigh> :shock: