Message-ID:	<3720ACE9.EEFF80B9@xoommail.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:24:57 -0600
From:	Ishpeck <ishpeck AT xoommail DOT com>
Organization:	Lunaticnologies
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Another reason for DOS/FreeDOS/DOS32, etc.
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
References:	<199904220405 DOT AAA16237 AT delorie DOT com> <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 19990423012009 DOT 007b1910 AT dragonbbs DOT com>
X-Corel-MessageType:	EMail
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Daniel Pierce wrote:
> >Dos is SIMPLE
> >Dos is SMALL
> >Dos is FAST! (direct hardware access)
> >Dos is single-user
> 
> I think we really need a multi-tasking DOS.

Well... Multitasking is convenient... but it has to work.  I do have
some multthreading libraries for DOS and C++.  Not exactly Multitasking,
but close enough in DOS terms.
 
> Bigger sometimes really does get in the way.

Amen, brother! :)
 
> My basic use of Freedos is in robotics. I am currently working on a large
> C3PO-R2D2 sized robot with a standard pc for it's main brain and a number
> of 68HC11 sub-brains. Main brain does all the thinking and the sub-brains
> do all the work. I need a multi-tasking OS that is simple, direct, yet can
> access standard ide hard drives. My machine (Arthur Wingnut) currently has
> a 386sx-33 & 100 meg HD, but will be upgraded to a AMD-K6-200 & 800 meg HD
> in a few months.

That's cool!  Do you have a web page with info on all that?

> DOS & DJGPP & Allegro is the enviroment I would prefer to program in
> (quick, simple, and direct access to all hardware elements) but it don't
> multi-task.

You only need multitasking if you want it.  If you make the program
good enough, it won't need a multitasking environment.

- Raw text -