Announcement

Collapse

New Sub-Forum

In an effort to help make sure there are appropriate categories for topics of discussion that are happening, there is now a sub-forum for databases and database programming under Special Interest groups. Please direct questions, etc., about this topic to that sub-forum moving forward. Thank you.
See more
See less

Will there come a successor of PBDOS v3.50

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will there come a successor of PBDOS v3.50

    Dear Dave and R&D support,

    Will there come a successor of PowerBASIC v3.50 for DOS this year.
    I’d love to have that the following things are included in the compiler
    v OOP
    v Three new data types: Boolean, Enum, Short
    v Addition of a case variant by records
    v A new structured objecttype: classes
    v new functions for fileprocessing: Eoln or how can I write it myself?
    v The possibility of reading in to the keyboard, all the data types with formatted input.
    v More stringfuncitions
    v To use installed variables as DIM a AS INTEGER = 15
    v A more advanced IDE as in Borland Pascal, would be the best.
    v The possibility to use CONST in all compilers in stead of in %
    v Use Const in Subs and functions
    for example SUB TelAF(CONST BYREF a AS integer bvb)


    Yours sincerely
    Stephane

  • #2
    Thanks for the suggestions, Stephane. Indications are that there will be at least one more major update to PB/DOS.

    Just for your information, Dave Navarro is not working for PowerBASIC Inc any longer (he's running his own web-related business nowadays).

    Regardless, your suggestions *will* be forwarded to R&D, less any duplicates that you have previously suggested, ie, OOP. In the interests of fairness we only permit one "vote" per customer per [specific] suggestion.

    Thanks again.

    ------------------
    Lance
    PowerBASIC Support
    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
    Lance
    mailto:[email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      Karl --

      > Does W2K support DOS?

      Yes, in almost exactly the same way that NT4 does. Nearly all DOS programs run fine, but there is no "boot to DOS mode".

      > Has Microsoft indicated it will
      > be terminating DOS support at some
      > point?

      Yes. They said that Windows 95 would not support DOS. Then they said the same thing about 98, then 2000, and now they're saying it about the upcoming Windows ME, the replacement for 98. However it does look like they mean it this time. My personal opinion is that somebody will be selling a "DOS window emulator" shortly after ME comes out, but I don't know that for sure. (I'm not talking about Perfect Sync... we will definitely not be developing a product like that.)

      A very important distinction: I have not heard anything about console support being removed from any future version of Windows, so you will always have the option of porting your DOS apps over to the PB/CC console compiler.

      Somebody else will have to address the PB/Vision question, but I'm not aware that it requires updating to work properly under Windows 2000.

      -- Eric

      ------------------
      Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
      Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

      "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

      Comment


      • #4
        Karl --

        > So W2K only runs DOS in a box.

        To be clear, Windows 2000 does allow DOS and console apps to run either in a "box" -- a window with an icon and title bar -- or in the fullscreen mode, which looks exactly like a DOS computer would look. Text only, usually 80x25 or 80x43. The user can switch between the two modes by pressing Alt-Enter unless a DOS program's shortcut has been modified to ignore Alt-Enter.

        What Windows NT and 2000 (and presumably ME) do not support is the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option on the Start menu's Shutdown dialog. It is not possible to completely eliminate Windows in that way, as can be done on 95 and 98 systems.

        -- Eric

        P.S. Have you looked at my company's Graphics Tools package, which allows PB/CC apps to display graphics?


        ------------------
        Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
        Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

        "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

        Comment


        • #5
          I cannot answer the PB/Vision question, sorry... I don't have that information.

          Also a wee note to add to Eric's comments on Win2K... in addition to 80x25 and 80x43 modes, WIn2K also supports 80x50 in full-screen mode.

          The story that I have is that Win2K was not going to have DOS support, but the decision was reversed. I joined in a Beta Release Candiate 2 (RC2) of Win2k and it full supported DOS applications even at that early stage in the beta cycle.

          The reviews I've read on Window ME say that it does not offer a DOS prompt mode at all, nor ability to run DOS applications. It *may* support Win16 applications to some degree, but it definitely does fully support Win32 Console applications (per PB/CC). As a result, Windows applications that launch COMMAND.COM or CMD.EXE to execute DOS tasks will need to be modified to run on Windows ME.

          That said, these comments are derrived from Beta 1 reviews, not first hand experience... MS reserve all rights to change their product specification!


          ------------------
          Lance
          PowerBASIC Support
          mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
          Lance
          mailto:[email protected]

          Comment


          • #6
            > in addition to 80x25 and 80x43
            > modes, WIn2K also supports 80x50
            > in full-screen mode.

            I'm pretty sure that the complete answer is "Windows 2000 supports whatever fullscreen console sizes your video card, driver, and monitor support". On my multiboot test system, Windows 2000 supports 25, 28, 43, and 50-line modes. I then rebooted the system and ran Windows 98, and using exactly the same hardware the 28-line mode was not supported. I don't know whether the driver or Windows 98 was the restricting factor.

            For those of you that are interested in the details, Windows 98 will not allow you to switch from the window mode to the fullscreen mode (using Alt-Enter) unless the console is using 25, 43, or 50 rows. And if you are in the fullscreen mode and select a value other than 25, 43, or 50, when you return to the window mode the console will not have the correct number of rows.

            In all versions of Windows that I have tested, you can create a console with any number of rows that you like, as long as you're in the window mode when you change the row-count. If you then switch to the fullscreen mode, the console will use the next-largest size that is supported. For example if you create a 30-row console and switch to fullscreen, you will usually see a 43-line display.

            -- Eric

            ------------------
            Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
            Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>



            [This message has been edited by Eric Pearson (edited May 24, 2000).]
            "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi,
              Windows ME (at least Beta 3) fully supports DOS full screen as well as a DOS window. It looks and acts exactly like in Win95/98. You can also run command.com from RUN on the start menu. I've compiled PB for DOS and PB/CC programs and they both work fine in ME. Oh yeah, and you're right that there is no "Restart In DOS Mode".

              ------------------
              Wyman Belts
              [email protected]

              [This message has been edited by Wyman A Belts (edited May 24, 2000).]

              Comment


              • #8
                > cannot find the update
                > Perfect Sync had emailed me.

                Just send a request to the address below and we'll be glad to replace it.

                -- Eric

                ------------------
                Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
                Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

                "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                Comment


                • #9
                  > Things are looking up

                  True, but Microsoft did change Windows 2000 pretty significantly between the betas and the retail version. So we're not out of the woods yet...

                  But I agree that that's a good sign.

                  -- Eric

                  ------------------
                  Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
                  Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

                  "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is no CONAGENT in Win2K, as it uses "WOW" (Windows on Windows) and NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS machine) to provide DOS emulation in this pure 32-bit NT based O/S.

                    NTVDM is vastly superior to Win9x's CONAGENT in my opinion.



                    ------------------
                    Lance
                    PowerBASIC Support
                    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
                    Lance
                    mailto:[email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Again,
                      I'm not sure if this helps, but a search of my WIN ME partition finds a CONAGENT.EXE and a WOW32.DLL. I'm not a big Console programmer so I'm not sure exactly how to tell what's being used to create consoles in WIN ME. If you'd like you can e-mail me and I can do a little more investigating if you'll tell me what I can do to help.

                      ------------------
                      Wyman Belts
                      [email protected]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        CONAGENT.EXE is essentially a "thunking" layer to provide console services for 32-bit console applications on a O/S that still contains a (large?) 16-bit core. Thats is why NT and 2000 do not use CONAGENT as console services are implemented in native 32-bit code in the O/S.

                        This means that WIN9x and ME provide "native" DOS support, with console support through CONAGENT.EXE to make console's work using the 16-bit sections of the O/S. OTOH, NT and 2000 provide native console support and emulated DOS. Diametrically opposite approaches.

                        WOW (which stands for Win16 on Win32, or, Windows on Windows) is a means to provide Win16 application support in Win32 O/S's. If you want more info on "WOW", then Microsoft can help here... a search of MS's site for "WOW" produces a huge amount of information, mostly in the form of KB articles! I did find one interesting Technet article that gives a reasonable good overview of NTVDM and WOW...

                        http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win...ew/ntarc_5.asp

                        ------------------
                        Lance
                        PowerBASIC Support
                        mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
                        Lance
                        mailto:[email protected]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          why not let windows go and use LINUX. Then there won't be need for all this commotion.

                          ------------------

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That is one possible solution, but PB/DOS will not create Linux applications. There are plans for a Linux version of PB/CC but no futher details are available at this time.

                            Regardless, a discussion on platforms is not appropriate to this forum.

                            ------------------
                            Lance
                            PowerBASIC Support
                            mailto:supp[email protected][email protected]</A>
                            Lance
                            mailto:[email protected]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Will hears my $0.02 worth.
                              If bad goes to worst and becouse windows can not communicate with DOS anyway. Why not jest get a dull-boot program? And use DOS or FreeDOS or NDOS or ect on it. Is this a dum ideal. As far as LINUX is concerned isn't there a DOS box for LINUX? I don't think that windows 95 or 98 will die vary soon eather. And in my openun if you can run 32 bit code in DOS (DOS emulater) even if microsoft quicks saporting DOS and some day it will. Some programmer will figer out how to run DOS program anyway, (I have a ton of DOS games I am not going to give anytime soon). IN MY OPENUN!
                              Gary

                              ------------------

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Gary --

                                "Double boot" or "multi-boot" systems such as System Commander (if that is what you meant) are an option for some applications, but most people want to use their workstations for DOS and Windows programs at the same time.

                                Personally, I use a switchbox so that I can use a single monitor, mouse, and keyboard for my NT machine, my 95/98/2000 multi-boot test machine, and my old reliable DOS machine. I have hotkeys set up to switch between the systems so I have one-key access to anything that I want to run, no matter what decisions Microsoft makes about DOS or anything else. Hardware is so cheap these days -- especially DOS-class hardware -- that I'm not worried.

                                > I don't think that windows 95 or
                                > 98 will die vary soon eather.

                                I just read that 70% of the personal computers in the world use Windows 95 or Windows 98 right now. Add the numbers for NT and 2000, and you'll understand why Linux is having a hard time making its way to the desktop. IMO it's kind of like Beta and VHS... the technically superior system doesn't always win. But I digress...

                                I agree with you that the creation of a "DOS emulator" is likely if/when Microsoft removes DOS support from Windows.

                                -- Eric

                                ------------------
                                Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
                                Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>



                                [This message has been edited by Eric Pearson (edited May 28, 2000).]
                                "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X