Very Computer

Ok, here's two different ways to look at DOS, and it's future.  Which is more
likely to be true?  Or, maybe, some other option?

DOS <==> 286.  Large user base for the product, so much so that, initially,
when a newer technology comes along (windows <==> 386) it still outsells
this competition.  But soon, the newer technology takes over, and seems to
grow expotentially, crushing the older technology almost literally overnight.

*OR*

DOS <==> COBOL.  When there were few other options in the field, this
technology was born.  Now, x number of years later, there are plenty of
competitors.  But so many people, having made such an incredible investment,
either will not or can not give up their dependence on this older product.
So, years later, it may not have much being developed for it that is new,
but there is still a base of users that continue to rely on it.

Please, folks, these are simple analogies.  The intent is to get the point
across, not form a rock solid argument.  Either DOS is currently winning,
but will be swept up and away very quickly in the near future, or its so
heavily invested that it's going to be around for a long time, despite what
anyone says.  Take your pick.

Personally, I'm hoping for the latter.

Duane, who decided to give Symantech a try first, over Watcom.  Price, you see.

This is correct. OS/2 has available all the same modes as DOS. All
fullscreen. All allow direct writes whilst it is the foregroud task. Who
cares if the action stops when you switch away from the game?!?

Personally I use Mode X (320x200 or 320x240), but occasionally use mode 13h.

I'm one of the few who have started to write for OS/2. I've written most
of a wolf 3d clone, put it on an OS/2 ftp site. Got heaps of responses
about OS/2 needing games. I cant wait to finnish my game, and rake in the
cash.

Anyone wants XLIB for OS/2, I'm youre man, just ask. I've ported it to
OS/2 protected mode. Almost the same as XLIB, even has compiled sprites.
Thats right SMC.

Quote:>Anyone out there actually worked under OS/2 and know whether or not this is
>the case? It seems to me that OS/2 must be fairly efficient to run DOS programs
>as well as it does. If there WAS a full screen graphics
>mode, it could probably be used for writing decent arcade type games.

Seem better than DOS to me. If you want you can give you process a
priority boost an get most of the processor time. Also has a flat
memory mode, no more 64k segments. Multiple threads! If you write your
programs using the OS/2 multimedia support(for sound), you needn't even
know what sound card is going to be attached.

Quote:>  Also it has a large enough installed base that you might be able to make some
>money selling games for it.

I think the market for OS/2 is fine, judging the requests/suggestions I've
had from users.

Graeme,

 Good analogies, actually.  Yeah, I think DOS will be swept away by a new
technology, but Windows isn't it.  (Unfortunately, Windows is selling as if it
were The Great New Technology To Solve Our DOS Woes) If we were all to drop DOS
for Windows, game quality and performance (at least in games with any sort of
animation or action) would have to take a giant leap back to match the
capabilities of the games of the mid-1980's. (Although Solitaire and Bridge
lovers would be safe).
 Windows (which is not an operating system but a really fancy DOS shell- think
about it, it's true for the most part) doesn't allow direct access to the
hardware. This is _almost_ essential to making kick-*games.  Some people
argue that the power and capabilities of today's machines are reaching the
point that this doesn't matter; computers will be so fast that you can run
great games under Windows.*that! If you can come up with a great game
while running it through a shell on top of an operating system, think of what
you can do on the same machine if you are accessing hardware directly! There is
nothing worse than having a lot of computing power available but not being able
to use it because of a barrier like Windoze.
 What we need is an operating system that does all the pretty Windows stuff,
but also has a mode where it shuts down, cleans house, and turns the computer's
resources over to the program. (Either that or all PC's ship with dedicated
graphics processors. Hmm... mighty unlikely anytime soon.) This is the only way
you can get the * masses to convert. Think about it, would you be willing
to sacrifice the incredible power of today's games just so it will run under
Windows? Me neither. And neither will the people who buy the games we write.
The fact is, personal computers will NEVER become so powerful as to the point
that all programs only use a fraction of their processing power. The history of
game programming is really just a history of people pushing technology to the
limits. The more computers advance, the more complex games will become. There
is an old saying that goes something like, "Any program grows to take up all
available memory" (Whatever, sorry if I butchered it). Well, the same holds
true for game programs: Any program (especially a game) will grow to take up
all the available processing power. Heck, a lot of games take up more power and
have to be scaled back (look at the upcoming DOOM from Id Software.)

That's how I see it...

Dave

P.S. -Windows lovers: Flame away. DOS has severe limitations, but Windows isn't
the answer. Sorry!

Linux can do that...  If you set the game to run as root, then it can access
the hardware directly.  You also don't have to worry about goofy DOS extenders
to let you break the 640k barrier.

The only problem with Linux is that it doesn't have to user base that Windoze has,
and the users are less likely to BUY games.  So, it is great for playing games,
but game programmers most likely wouldn't be able to make a living writing games
for it.  But... if you want to freely distribute games or demos just to be nice
to the game-playing public or to be a show-off, then Linux might be the answer.

Hi:

Chicago will not run under a dos shell. It will be dos independent! But
there going to lock out direct screen access:( I've had concerned over this
a long time. I'm new to game programming but I was considering switching
platforms; ie amiga. But, Pharlap has promised me that MS will not leave
us game programmers in the cold. After all, they did hire Michael Abrash!
But all in all, I dislike DOS and Windows, but I'll weigth and see what
MS have up there sleeves. There solution may surprise us all.

Till then, i'm still working on my game. Since, i'm the musician,
programmar, artistic coordinator, and everything else things are
coming along a little slow but I'm getting there!

So watch out! I'm cominggggggggg, and I promise I will be BAD!

Erica,
* Sorry guys -- just trying to be one of the gal-trying-tobe-oneof-the-guys *

Quote:>> What we need is an operating system that does all the pretty Windows stuff,
>>but also has a mode where it shuts down, cleans house, and turns the computer's
>>resources over to the program.

>Linux can do that...  If you set the game to run as root, then it can access
>the hardware directly.  You also don't have to worry about goofy DOS extenders
>to let you break the 640k barrier.

  I believe that OS/2 might have the capability to at least have a program do
direct screen writes, there is an OS/2 full screen mode that some programs
use to run in a text mode under OS/2, maybe this cnan be used for graphics as
well.

Anyone out there actually worked under OS/2 and know whether or not this is
the case? It seems to me that OS/2 must be fairly efficient to run DOS programs
as well as it does. If there WAS a full screen graphics
mode, it could probably be used for writing decent arcade type games.

  Also it has a large enough installed base that you might be able to make some
money selling games for it.

Nigel Brooke

Can't Windows do it if your program runs full screen?

I don't think so -- I don't think a Windows program can overtake the
hardware completely and have direct frame buffer access.  I know under NT
that this DEFINITELY impossible.

Brian
--
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Brian Hook                      "Stop!  Stop in the name of all that

//
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   >But, Pharlap has promised me that MS will not leave
   >us game programmers in the cold. After all, they did hire Michael Abrash!

Well, MS said they wouldn't leave us OS/2 programmers out in the cold
either.  Also, Abrash isn't exactly a games writer -- he writes graphics
routines and columns, but he has never been involved with a commercial
quality game.  Also, he is writing device drivers of Microsoft.

Maybe PharLap is hinting at OpenGL -- OpenGL sounds nice, but it's only
going to be available for NT in 2Q 94, and a hardware accelerator is pretty
much going to be a must have in order for reasonable performance.

Brian
--
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Brian Hook                      "Stop!  Stop in the name of all that

//
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:> >   Can't Windows do it if your program runs full screen?

> I don't think so -- I don't think a Windows program can
> overtake the hardware completely and have direct frame buffer
> access.  I know under NT that this DEFINITELY impossible.    

It would be possible under Windows, allocate a selector pointing to the
framebuffer...try calling the DOS interrupts to display text etc some
time from a Windows program, they will over-write the screen.

--

Quote:>Linux can do that...  If you set the game to run as root, then it can access
>the hardware directly.  You also don't have to worry about goofy DOS extenders
>to let you break the 640k barrier.

What?
AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGG!!!
Why the HELL do ya wanna write for linux, if you're going to do screwy
stuff like that?!

If you're going to be a scummy programmer and tweak with the hardware,
stick with MS-DOG.

If (and only if) you're going to do some properly designed, portable
code, use linux. Grrrr.

Philip Brown

Owner of a Sparc 1, with GX board, who would like to see more decently
written games for Xwindows/unix, not more MS-DOG hacks.

SPEED TIP: use the MITSHM extention to the server, when needed.

(stands for "MIT Shared Memory extention")
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look! Up in the Sky! It's a bird!" "It's a plane!" "It's... time for lunch!"
"Naaa. it's just SuperBabs"
"Well, I was hoping it was time for lunch..."

Quote:>> What we need is an operating system that does all the pretty Windows stuff,
>>but also has a mode where it shuts down, cleans house, and turns the computer's
>>resources over to the program.

>Linux can do that...  If you set the game to run as root, then it can access
>the hardware directly.  You also don't have to worry about goofy DOS extenders
>to let you break the 640k barrier.

You can do that in Windows, if you know the right undocumented
calls.

...Boone

Quote:>Till then, i'm still working on my game. Since, i'm the musician,
>programmar, artistic coordinator, and everything else things are
>coming along a little slow but I'm getting there!
>So watch out! I'm cominggggggggg, and I promise I will be BAD!

Hey, alright!  I thought I was the only one crazy enough to try to
do all this stuff by myself...

:)
...Boone

  YES, why don't we just all run out and cough up $10,000 so we can play
  games on a Penix box!  Also, why would anyone EVER use the word 'decent'
  and XWindows in the same sentence??

If they are undocumented, then there is no guarantee they'll be supported in
future versions of Windows.

Dave