Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
DOS on P2? — Parallax Forums

DOS on P2?

RaymanRayman Posts: 14,566
edited 2014-08-27 16:36 in Propeller 2
Can it be done? Seems like it could.

MS-DOS source code is available. There are some other DOS versions out there too...
Seems P2 has RAM and speed enough...
«1

Comments

  • BaggersBaggers Posts: 3,019
    edited 2014-08-20 04:54
    Would it be better to do a 286 emulator? that way, you could just run any dos program, rather than having to re-write them all. :)
  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2014-08-20 06:39
    DR-DOS is also open source.

    So is the GEM desktop! (Atari ST)

    A 286 emulator stands a good chance of running 10MHz+ equivalent on a P2
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,566
    edited 2014-08-20 08:59
    That would be very cool... I could dig out my floppy disks...
  • whickerwhicker Posts: 749
    edited 2014-08-20 09:27
    I never had any nostalgia for DOS or 8086 PC's...

    The CGA colors were awful (if you had color, instead of green screen), load times horrendous, squawking PC beeper used as crude speaker, some weird 55 ms timer (18.2 ticks a second? why?).
    I attempted to learn assembly at the time, and with such a crude platform and confusing CPU I almost gave it up forever.

    DOS was a hideous OS and needed hackish TSR's to support base hardware, and the stuff I was interested in (Games) always seemed to read and write from the hardware directly and blindly.
    So with so many hacks any emulator has to simulate the entire PC if any interesting "DOS" software is to run.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2014-08-20 09:47
    Not a bad idea. There was a lot of useful software that ran on a 286, and with sd to replace floppies and hd's it would be even better.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2014-08-20 09:58
    Hey this could be a great idea!!

    There is the DOS games and such. There is a lot of pain too. Nobody really misses those times. But, there are a TON of systems that still run under DOS. A nice system that delivers solid emulation could open up a lot of doors in terms of upgrading, improving and connecting legacy systems.
  • pik33pik33 Posts: 2,366
    edited 2014-08-20 10:15
  • BaggersBaggers Posts: 3,019
    edited 2014-08-20 11:12
    Anyone wanna port DOSBox?
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2014-08-20 11:51
    Other than having more HUB RAM (less than the infamous 640K btw), what features of the theoretical P2 will help in emulating an 80x86?

    Also, isn't emulating an 80286 really over-kill for DOS? Protected mode is not necessary (or useful without a DOS extender method Pharlap? - I could be wrong), and non-multiplexed address/data is not likely to add real value (64+ pins for SRAM leaves very little left for peripherals !again!).

    I suppose if you get an 8086 emulator running, you could extend it though ... like Intel did. ;-)
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2014-08-20 12:57
    Oh God. Pharlap. There is a name I had nearly forgotten...
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-20 16:11
    Good old MS-DOS does not need a 286. DOS knew nothing of the memory management and other features in the 286. The 286 was a brain dead pile of junk anyway.

    I'm sure an 8086 emulator on a PII is quite possible and might even run at original IMB PC speeds.

    But then MS-DOS was a brain dead pile of junk as well and I can't imagine anyone would want to bother with it. Certainly not anyone who lived through having to use it back in the day.
  • ozpropdevozpropdev Posts: 2,792
    edited 2014-08-21 00:37
    I recently visited a old customer of mine who I wrote a DOS program for in 1990.
    He still uses that software running from floppy on a old machine.
    Talk about getting the most out of your investment. :lol:
    BTW I don't think I charged him enough in the first place! :(:)
  • Cluso99Cluso99 Posts: 18,069
    edited 2014-08-21 03:07
    Used PharLap to write my mini emulation on a 486. Certainly brings back memories.
  • Invent-O-DocInvent-O-Doc Posts: 768
    edited 2014-08-21 04:05
    I really liked DR DOS and used GEM on PC and Atari ST. DOS wasn't perfect but it was a lot better than CPM when it came to memory mapping. A lot of the inelegance was due to the tremendous expansion of capabilities in over a decade and shifting hardware limitations. Such an emulator would be cool, I guess, though in the end there isn't much market for retrocomputing platforms. Ive got a good application for p2 in mind but would need to run a large GCC program from external memory to pull it off.
  • msrobotsmsrobots Posts: 3,709
    edited 2014-08-22 01:11
    ozpropdev wrote: »
    I recently visited a old customer of mine who I wrote a DOS program for in 1990.
    He still uses that software running from floppy on a old machine.
    Talk about getting the most out of your investment. :lol:
    BTW I don't think I charged him enough in the first place! :(:)

    Yes. Sort of working my resume backwards nowadays I stumble about stuff like that a lot.

    Not Dos. But I found a running windows 3.? still in active environment and executing a COBOL program (sort of Cash-Register and Inventory) I wrote 1992 in MicroFocus Cobol.

    Sort of funny thing MicroFocus did at that time. Getting text based Cobol programs to run in the first MS GUI environment. Them did a quite good job in using the same source for text and GUI based UI's.

    I guess nobody here thinks that COBOL still has any value. But being forced to go back there I was astonished. Met some old friends again still working in COBOL. Needed some help after 20+ years of not touching the language.

    You do not find much in the internet about it, but COBOL is still going strong. Tons of man-years invested in source. Huge programs, Still running.

    I am back to my daily job with C# now - the time travel with COBOL was short and just for a friend of mine, long ago.

    But honestly - there is a market out there. Them COBOL programmers are either going to retire or simply die off. I got several job offers in a couple of weeks while helping out a friend.

    Alas - you need to wear a suit and a tie.

    Mike
  • NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
    edited 2014-08-24 19:00
    I wrote my first program using Borland's Turbo C++. It was DOS based and just trying to write routines for some basic graphics was a PITA. I remember many a night being up until 3:00 AM and hollering and screaming when I got something to work that I had been struggling with. Wife hated that so I built my own office so she could not hear me!!!! those were the days. I really do not miss DOS at all. I do find myself using the command prompt from time to time. Old tricks die hard!!!!
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2014-08-25 10:06
    I used DOS from 2.2 to the version buried in Win98, never had a issue with it. Didn't expect much from it either. I did like it in the sense it was really easy writing programs to access custom ISA cards, compared to say OS/2.

    It certainly didn't say much about M$ vaunted technical prowess when they could only produce a crude OS like this while Commodore had the Amiga OS which put it to shame.

    Now DOS on a P2 doesn't make sense when there are a bunch of x86 boards out there like Intel Galileo that can do it better and faster than the P2 ever could. Porting is a lot easier too.

    As for retrocomputing, it has been moving to FPGA's and/or using still available 6502's, Z-80, 68K's and building your own system, etc.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-25 10:17
    rod1963,
    It certainly didn't say much about M$ vaunted technical prowess when they could only produce a crude OS like this...
    They did not have any technical prowess at the time DOS came out. It had already been written by Seattle Computer Products as 86-DOS a rip of the ideas in CP/M.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2014-08-25 12:09
    Heater. wrote: »
    rod1963,

    They did not have any technical prowess at the time DOS came out. It had already been written by Seattle Computer Products as 86-DOS a rip of the ideas in CP/M.
    Isn't everything copied from everything else before? Even the great and powerful Linux is just a re-write of Unix.
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2014-08-25 12:32
    No, I'm not talking about when DOS hit the streets, I'm talking years later when the 586 was out and c**p DOS was still their OS - albeit with a GUI shell on top. It showed they never really did OS's right and even with NT it took them what 10 or so years before they got it right with XP.

    Personally, if M$ got sucked into another dimension along with Gates, I'd be elated. That nasty little bugger held back computer innovation by decades with his monopolist practices and intellectual piracy. Embrace and extend my a**, it's always been steal and strangle with him.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-25 13:21
    Dave Hein,
    Isn't everything copied from everything else before? Even the great and powerful Linux is just a re-write of Unix.
    Yep. That is how the world is supposed to work. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton said.

    MS and others on the other hand would rather that they had the "secret knowledge" and are keepers of the code whilst you humble maggots out there just pay to use it.

    By the way "just a re-write of Unix" seems to be rather derogatory. That "just a rewrite" took far more work than ever went into MS-DOS starting from the creation of GCC by Richard Stallman in 1987. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History and the subsequent efforts of thousands of hackers and companies.


  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-25 13:28
    rod1963,
    ...even with NT it took them what 10 or so years before they got it right with XP.
    Actual quality of code has never been my main argument for or against Windows or any other OS.

    But whilst we are here. The first ever .exe I ran on the first release of NT crashed it hard. Despite all the pronouncements of being a muIti-user, multi-tasking OS with memory protection bla bla from MS. I was a bit miffed as it had taken me a long time to write (it worked fine under DOS despite being a 32 bit app). I knew at that moment it was all hopeless.
  • Invent-O-DocInvent-O-Doc Posts: 768
    edited 2014-08-25 18:36
    Its pretty easy to criticize a code base that covers decades of compatibility and runs 95% of computers. MS may not be perfect but I don't see anyone doing it.
  • PropGuy2PropGuy2 Posts: 360
    edited 2014-08-26 04:40
    Geez - DOS, slide rules, punch cards - SO last century...
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2014-08-26 05:12
    I don't like to use the Command prompt window under Windows, which is essentially the same as the DOS UI. However, I do use Cygwin under Windows and the command-line interface under Linux most of the time at work, and for much of my hobby programming. This is essentially the same as DOS, except that Cygwin/Linux has a much fuller set of utilities.

    I do run GUI programs to read my email and browse the web, or to run Excel and Word. The GUI interface is great for organizing my photos. Other than that, I prefer to do everything else through the command line. I even avoid the Prop Tool and SimpleIDE, preferring to use vi along with BSTC and propeller-elf-gcc.

    For me, it is easier to keep both hands on the home-row of the keyboard instead of switching back and forth between the keyboard and a mouse. I think the ability to touch-type makes that easier. For people who can't touch-type, and have to use the hunt-and-peck method it might be easier to use a GUI and mouse.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2014-08-26 10:31
    IMHO, there are two very significant things about command line input:

    1. Syntax. It's possible to encode a very rich set of functionality into syntax, and it's equally possible for people to understand it and make use of it in flexible ways.

    This is the UNIX way.

    2. In a more general sense, it's about context changes. When we are keyboarding, there is one mental context. We are composing our input and we are delivering it. There is a flow here, and good typists can type while thinking, literally speaking to the computer via the keyboard. That's what I'm doing right now, and for the most part, these are a lot of the words you would hear if we were talking. (which is why I seriously wish we could improve voice just one more notch... Because I would use it, when I'm using the computer myself, not in a mix where conflicting voices would be a problem)

    When we context switch, such as going to use the mouse, or some other input mode and or device, we lose flow, and with the loss of flow comes a higher mental burden to continue the line of thought. This resistance shows up as fatigue and or less cohesive / productive sessions. A great example of this is seen in mechanical CAD systems, where GUI input makes a lot of sense, and the UI has moved to presenting options that make sense for flow more than an attempt to present a structured syntax of sorts. Good innovation going on in GUI land right now. Doing the same sort of task command line would be extremely painful, as it is extremely painful with a GUI presenting a ton of options too.

    A great example of syntax, where a GUI really doesn't add value, might be regular expressions.

    Secondly, there is a form of hysteresis about this, where regular and expected context switches are something people can work into flow. Some people are fairly rigid and present a considerable and varied reluctance to change context. Their hysterisis is high. Others do it effortlessly. A lot of the GUI / command line debate is driven by this difference among people, and it's just not often discussed. And it should be.

    The thing is, a whole lot of people simply don't flow in the go deep sense. Your average knowledge worker may task a lot instead. For them, the GUI helps considerably, because they need to keep a lot of states handy, providing little bits of input here and there, with expected context switches. This is your power user with 30 windows open, who has not logged out for two weeks. Doing that command line can also be done, and the difference might be the secretary or marketing person running a GUI really hard, as opposed to the sysadmin who is touching 50 machines, etc...

    The GUI paradigm works extremely well for the former. It can work for the latter, in a support role, again where there isn't flow, but where there is flow, the command line would empower that person to manage a lot of machines, data, requirements, scripting, etc... to just make things happen. They won't want to switch a lot, because they won't want to break flow and lose that more complex state enabling them to automate things successfully, for example.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-27 02:03
    GUIs are good. Command lines are good.

    I think that the reason why most people hate the command line is that the DOS shell in Windows is pretty crappy.

    If you have tasks that you do a lot why not abstract them into buttons on the screen that you click? Or whatever GUI thing you like.

    I cannot imagine life without a command line. By the time you have made a GUI comprehensive enough to do everything you can do from the shell it would be huge, massively complex and impossible to use. Not saying it can't be done but what would be the point?

    I cannot imagine life without a GUI. Like this browser I'm typing into now.

    Sometimes all that mousing around and touch/swiping is just making things more inconvenient rather than easier.
  • RossHRossH Posts: 5,455
    edited 2014-08-27 02:32
    Heater. wrote: »
    I think that the reason why most people hate the command line is that the DOS shell in Windows is pretty crappy.

    Got it in one. If your whole business model is based around getting people's hands off the (non-patentable) keyboard and onto your (patentable) mouse as often as possible, then naturally you are going to make the command line as awful to use as you can.

    The Windows command line interpreter is simply appalling, even compared to the command line interpreters that preceded it by 20 or more years.

    Did they do this deliberately? Of course they did!

    Ross.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2014-08-27 07:06
    There is a place for both a command line and a gui. Initially I thought being able to run dos would be beneficial, but after some more consideration concluded the benefits are not worth the required effort. Perhaps it would be better to come up with a simple gui and command line interface more suitable for the propeller rather than copy an antiquated and flawed os.
  • KMyersKMyers Posts: 433
    edited 2014-08-27 09:19
    I use and like both GUI and command line. When I played with Linux Mint I re-fell in love with the command line. Then my HD crashed resulting in a reformat. I guess I dont see a need for DOS/Linux or a OS for a microcontroller. What am I missing?

    Thanks..
Sign In or Register to comment.