| ??? 01/16/07 15:14 Read: times |
#130892 - Misunderstanding ? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I interpret "playing-fast-and-loose" correctly
I would interpret it as "Does not bother to use the facilities provided by the OS or the BIOS to access the hardware.". MS-DOS might consider this "inconsiderate" but won't bother otherwise. Any real operating system will block any attempt at doing so. Why would a MS-DOS (read: single user single task) program be different from a '51 program in this respect? Because even an almost-OS (actually, it's an extended disk/keyboard/display driver) like MS-DOS provides rudimentary services (and the bios, too) to access the hardware. On a '51, you're not playing fast and loose since there is no other way of accessing the hardware than directly. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| doubt about ports | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and one more doubt | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Programming the PC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Off Topic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wrong forum | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Win ports | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bad practice... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bad practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some thoughts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do not hard-code adresses! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You need to tell us more ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MS-DOS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Misunderstanding ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not quite so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a parallel in '51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sharing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK, the sad facts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MS-DOS will allow and do anything the PC can do | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ...and the reason is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If Windows were truly multi-user/multitasking ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it's broken | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| So much for the "Good Old Days" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, and the ones that worked, worked really well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The Right one | 01/01/70 00:00 |