home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.programmer:9053 comp.os.msdos.misc:5045
- Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!geac!zooid!ross
- From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
- Subject: Re: Why ms-dos is non reentrant
- Organization: ZOOiD BBS
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:19:54 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Sep4.061954.24900@zooid.guild.org>
- References: <1992Sep1.160133.19060@mits.mdata.fi> <1992Sep2.065315.19027@zooid.guild.org> <BtzE9H.53G.2@cs.cmu.edu>
- Lines: 37
-
- kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) writes:
- >So, the question remains, why don't the Microsoft programmers bang
- >their brains together and rewrite MSDOS to be fully re-entrant and
- >all the routines to use dynamic memory allocation instead of static?
-
- ross@zooid.guild.org (Ross Ridge) writes:
- }Well the reasons why this wasn't done for MS-DOS 5 and earlier releases
- }is fairly straight forward:
-
- [ MS-DOS is single user, single tasking and big enough ]
-
- ralf+@cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes:
- >Where have you been?
-
- Not Europe.
-
- >It's been done already.... MSDOS 4.00 was multitasking, but practically
- >nobody ever got to see it.
-
- I'd forgotten about this, but I imagine the reasons that practically
- nobody saw it are pretty much the same as I wrote above.
-
- >MSDOS 4.00 allowed one foreground and up to 30 background tasks (limited by
- >conventional memory), with interprocess communications, semaphores,
- >scheduling, etc. And it supported asynchronous device drivers, where the
- >split into strategy and interrupt routines actually meant something.
-
- Do you think any of MS-DOS 4.00 will make it in to a future multitasking
- MS-DOS or will they just ignore it?
-
- Ross Ridge
-
- --
- Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU l/ //
- [OO][oo]
- ross@zooid.guild.org /()\/()/
- uunet.ca!zooid!ross db //
-