I have a c program that I need to use in dos 5 but i haven´t found a way to do so .Programs that work perfectly in Win XP console window, will not work in dos.Does anyone know : What do i have to add to my code so it would work in dos.(My program is simple so an example on hello world program would do the trick). I googled but found nothing so I signed up to this forum for help .
Thanks!
Jump to PostUse one of these compilers:
Turbo 1.01
Turbo 2.01
Turbo 3.0
Jump to Postyou have my sympathy.
Jump to Postyou have my sympathy.
Why would you even bother mentioning a piece of dreck like that? :icon_rolleyes:
you have my sympathy.
Why would you even bother mentioning a piece of dreck like that? :icon_rolleyes:
Oh, yeah, I'll be the first to admit, Turbo C is preferable. but it costs $$.
whereas the one i posted is a FREE alternative that's usually suitable for average user.
i mean think about it... DOS 5.0? whoever is hanging on to that crap is not likely to shell out much cash for new program development on what is probably non-critical, lowest priority legacy code.
as it is, it appears this is just a school exercise, anyhow
My program is simple so an example on hello world program would do the trick
I say Digital Mars will be entirely sufficient.
>> whoever is hanging on to that crap is not likely to shell out much cash for new program >>development on what is probably a maintenance money sink as it is
I know of several manufacturing companies that are still using it on the assembly lines. Why? Because it is a fast little real-time operating system that is ideally suited for such a task. Neither MS-Windows nor *nix are real-time operating systems so they are not suited for receiving and acting upon signals from other equipment (such as barcode scanners, scales, metal detectors, lazer beam etchers, label printers, large character printers, and other computers ) as products move down the assembly line.
i know what you're saying, dragon, but it doesn't usually work that way.
components reach end of life, instruments and machines are no longer supported, systems become obsolete, and drivers cease to be made available for their replacements. you just can not physically maintain an assembly line running dos.
last month i just bought a truckload of new industrial computers running XP to replace our ancient win98 machines. we couldn't keep those '98 lines going even if we wanted to, and believe me, management wanted to. 98 is long since end of life.
and we're not manufacturing cutting-edge devices. all our instrumentation automation is via GPIB for chrissakes. we'd run DOS if we could get away with it, for sure.
and... FTR... DOS is not an RTOS. Linux has RTOS capability, and Windows CE is an RTOS. but you dont need an RTOS to run the assembly line you described. its only useful for embedded development.
Oh, yeah, I'll be the first to admit, Turbo C is preferable. but it costs $$.
My ghod! Go to the f'n links and download the FREE Turbo C Compilers I linked to!!!
Stop posting crap -- check your facts!
you just can not physically maintain an assembly line running dos.
Maybe you can't, but it's obvious others have the knowledge to keep older O/S's running. They seem to be doing it.
>>DOS is not an RTOS
What I mean by RTOS is (1) program able to access computer ports directly, (2) program gets real-time hardware interrupts when an event occurs that can be detected by the computer hardware such as serial ports, network cards etc. That can not be done with any version of MS-Windows beyond Win95 and can not be done with WinCE.
Special thanks to WaltP. Turbo c was the key.
I am a student by the way. And it was a schoolwork, but i wanted to run it on a machine that
was build when people used programs simple and basic like mine. The machine is Nixdorf 8830 and was built in 1988( Estonia was still a part of the soviet union).
5.0 was the highest version of dos that worked on the damn thing.
glad you got your dos machine running for your class project. i imagine youve had a few frustrations with that.
Jephthah: "you just can not physically maintain an assembly line running dos."
Walt: "Maybe you can't, but it's obvious others have the knowledge to keep older O/S's running. They seem to be doing it."
Walt, have you even worked in an assembly plant environment???
I'm a line support engineer at a major facility that employs about 1000 semi-skilled assemblers and electronic technicians, and there is just NO WAY we can maintain assembly lines in a regulated environment using even Win 98, much less DOS.
we've got old Tektronics TDS-520 oscilloscopes in our automated test lines that are obsolete. Weve got RACAL switch matrixes that arent being manufactured or supported anymore, becasue the manufacturer, RACAL, doesn't even *exist* anymore.
these components need to be calibrated and serviced on regular intervals, and their replacement parts are not available. are you familiar with the term "end of life"?? these instruments need to be replaced. and here's the key: the available test instrumentation that we can get for replacements are not being manufactured for Win98, much less DOS, support. go on, ask Microsoft for some support on Win98 or DOS drivers.
now i'm not saying that there isn't some widget manufacturer out there who isn't keeping their deteriorating lines limping along, using a whole lot of spit and duct tape, scouring EBay and Craigslist for old equipment, and spending hours of time custom-crafting obscure software and relying on tribal knowledge to maintain their uptime.
because there are a few of these places still out there. but they're hardly models of industry. if you want to know why Japan is beating the US consistently at manufacturing, this is a big reason.
Walt, have you even worked in an assembly plant environment???
I'm a line support engineer at a major facility that employs about 1000 semi-skilled assemblers and electronic technicians, and there is just NO WAY we can maintain assembly lines in a regulated environment using even Win 98, much less DOS.
I've worked in many arenas. From manufacturing and production to medical devices to POS/inventory systems. And as a software engineer, so I know something about programming and systems. Possibly more than a support engineer. Why?
I only took exception to the statement "you just can not physically maintain an assembly line running dos." You like to make blanket statements that are true in your arena, but may not be true outside of your personal experience.
Possibly more than a support engineer. Why?
oh dear.
now it's going to be an e-peen contest. i'll bet you can write your name in the snow, too.
but you'll have to excuse my absence. I'll be busy studying for the P.E. exam. lucky you software engineers don't need to worry about all that silly electrical, chemical, mechanical, and materials stuff..
it's nasty business, really it is.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.