"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bec5me$lql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
> Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box.

Flashtek works on DOS, and all windows versions except XP, where Microsoft apparently broke the interface to DPMI. Other than not working under XP, Flashtek is (in my experience) far better than other DOS extenders, primarilly because it is an order of magnitude smaller.

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:becc58$rsq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I expect the same exe to run under Win-XP and plain DOS. Why keep 2 exes for the same job? If that's impossible with Flashtek, please say so.

What I've done for years is make a dual executable. I.e. build the DOSX version, and then make that the 'stub executable' for the win32 version. That way, if running under dos, the DOSX version runs. If running under Win32, the Win32 version runs. The two executables are bound into one .exe file.

I found running DOS programs to be unsuitable under Win32, because:

1) DOS programs can't handle long file names.
2) DOS date/time has too coarse a granularity.
3) Win32 does not pass the environment correctly when a DOS program spawns a
Win32 program and vice versa.
4) Problems with long command lines (as you've pointed out!).

With a dual executable, these problems go away.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> What I've done for years is make a dual executable. I.e. build the DOSX version, and then make that the 'stub executable' for the win32 version. That way, if running under dos, the DOSX version runs. If running under Win32, the Win32 version runs. The two executables are bound into one .exe file.

Is that what you did for dmc.exe? If so this method have problems
with 4DOS shells. For every spawning of 386link, one instance of dmc.exe
is left running in the TaskManager. With COMMAND.COM it's okay.
Are you checking the %COMSPEC% value?

--gv

Gisle Vanem wrote:
	.
	.

> Do you mean the "*NEW VERSION* Updated May 15, 2001" ?
> Yes I do; is there a newer version?
> 
> --gv
> 


The version can change. the date don't..
I personaly Re download it once a year.

If i could help i might help and after say about the same as Jan.
As i can't help i just say about the same as Jan.

ciao

roland

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bednha$255s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> > What I've done for years is make a dual executable. I.e. build the DOSX version, and then make that the 'stub executable' for the win32 version. That way, if running under dos, the DOSX version runs. If running under Win32, the Win32 version runs. The two executables are bound into one
.exe
> > file.
> Is that what you did for dmc.exe? If so this method have problems
> with 4DOS shells. For every spawning of 386link, one instance of dmc.exe
> is left running in the TaskManager. With COMMAND.COM it's okay.
> Are you checking the %COMSPEC% value?

Not anymore. dmc.exe is now a win32 only program.

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bec5me$lql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> > I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.
> > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW.
> > Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
>
> Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box.

I consider WinXP a huge pile of crap. If it doesn't support advanced technique (which previous versions of M$ Windows supported, by the way) it doesn't mean that any software that uses this technique is crap.

DOSX is fastest and smallest dos extender. I've used it for 4 years (till now) for several huge military class software systems, and I have never had ANY fault related to DOSX.

Nic Tiger.

Nic Tiger wrote:

> DOSX is fastest and smallest dos extender. I've used it for 4 years (till
> now) for several huge military class software systems, and I have never had
> ANY fault related to DOSX.
> 

we used DOSX for real time embeded machine tools driving up to 5 axis. same: NEVER had ANY problem due to DOSX.

roland

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote:

> DOSX is fastest and smallest dos extender. I've used it for 4 years (till now) for several huge military class software systems, and I have never had ANY fault related to DOSX.

Small size is no longer a bonus IMHO. It tells me it was probably
written in asm and with limited features or runtime checks.
Does your X32 programs run i anything but plain DOS?
OS/2, Win32, dosemu DOS-boxes?

--gv

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:behc9i$2k04$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote:
> > DOSX is fastest and smallest dos extender. I've used it for 4 years
(till
> > now) for several huge military class software systems, and I have never
had
> > ANY fault related to DOSX.
> Small size is no longer a bonus IMHO. It tells me it was probably written in asm and with limited features or runtime checks.

It was written in asm, and it is full featured.

> Does your X32 programs run i anything but plain DOS?

Yes, it runs under all Win32 versions except XP, when Microsoft broke DPMI support.

> OS/2, Win32, dosemu DOS-boxes?

It should. I haven't powered up my OS/2 box in over a decade <g>.

It works fine on OS/2. I used it for 1/2 year and I liked the way OS/2 implemented DPMI. Problems with my new video card drivers prevented me from using OS/2 further.

Also I tried DOSX on Linux' dos-emu. It works, but my specific program didn't work because of lack of VESA BIOS support.

Nic Tiger.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:behdn0$2ldk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:behc9i$2k04$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote:
> > > DOSX is fastest and smallest dos extender. I've used it for 4 years
> (till
> > > now) for several huge military class software systems, and I have
never
> had
> > > ANY fault related to DOSX.
> > Small size is no longer a bonus IMHO. It tells me it was probably written in asm and with limited features or runtime checks.
>
> It was written in asm, and it is full featured.
>
> > Does your X32 programs run i anything but plain DOS?
>
> Yes, it runs under all Win32 versions except XP, when Microsoft broke DPMI support.
>
> > OS/2, Win32, dosemu DOS-boxes?
>
> It should. I haven't powered up my OS/2 box in over a decade <g>.
>
>