OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - General > Polls

Compatibility with OS/2

<< < (3/9) > >>

Andi B.:

--- Code: ---...Some people do have that package, and they can develop drivers, using it. If that package could be replaced, drivers would be easier to develop. In addition, I expect that there are more than a few DDK licenses, sitting idle, and those could be put to good use, if those who have them would donate them to somebody who can/will use them....
--- End code ---
I got the impression some people think the DDK is mystical well hidden secret code no one had access to without paying a truck load of gold in advance. It isn't. It was free to download. At least at the time I got my copy. Of course registration was required and you have to accept the usual lawyers bullshit speech before which most of it I forgot the second I pressed the accept button. Though I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed to share the DDK sources in the public. But it is/was definitely allowed to me -

1) to freely download
2) to use for education and work on OS/2 device drivers
3) to release drivers based on that code

IMHO you hardly can argue giving DDK sources to a friend of mine would be covered by the 'do not share in the public' clause. So friends of mine who accept to not release it into the public can have a copy from me.

ak120:

--- Quote from: Andi B. on November 07, 2017, 08:53:10 am ---I got the impression some people think the DDK is mystical well hidden secret code no one had access to without paying a truck load of gold in advance. It isn't. It was free to download. At least at the time I got my copy. Of course registration was required and you have to accept the usual lawyers bullshit speech before which most of it I forgot the second I pressed the accept button. Though I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed to share the DDK sources in the public.
--- End quote ---

I agree, this has been true for the times of the OS/2 Developer Toolbox program. The Entry level without additional payment was enough. And even before it was neither ultra expensive nor black magic at all.
The so-called "legal stuff" was only about the third-party components that were included. They should (in some cases) be used for device driver development only. But not all OS/2 device drivers were released in DDK source form and vice versa.

And just a picture for the real mode compatibility...

André Heldoorn:

--- Quote from: Rick C. Hodgin on November 06, 2017, 08:51:09 pm ---I would like community feedback on how important some features of OS/2 are, such as 16-bit support?  16-bit and 32-bit Win-OS/2 support?  16-bit and 32-bit DOS support?
--- End quote ---

</silence>You'll have the freedom to not support whatever component of an OS/2 install one may be using indeed, in my case (almost) all of the above, but for one it's yet another method to reduce the size of the user base. At the moment I do use MS Office 4.3 more frequently than the number of times I'd really need and want 64-bit support, and on average our collection of software (and investements, if anything of time) will be older than software for more common OSes. If one has to get rid of old software, then one may as well consider using any other OS.<silence>

RickCHodgin:

--- Quote from: André Heldoorn on November 07, 2017, 11:26:43 am ---</silence>You'll have the freedom to not support whatever component of an OS/2 install one may be using indeed, in my case (almost) all of the above, but for one it's yet another method to reduce the size of the user base. At the moment I do use MS Office 4.3 more frequently than the number of times I'd really need and want 64-bit support, and on average our collection of software (and investements, if anything of time) will be older than software for more common OSes. If one has to get rid of old software, then one may as well consider using any other OS.<silence>

--- End quote ---

I would like to include everything OS/2 has today.  Every API, every subtlety, every nuance.  If (more) people come on board and help me it can all be done, but I think people will need to see some real progress before they're willing to invest time and labor in an unproven product like this, by a potential crackpot like me no less.  hehe

When I see your posts, your </silence>....<silence> tags crack me up. :-)

André Heldoorn:
</silence>
FWIW: DOSBox may seem to be a possible answer to reduce a theoretical workload of 64-bit developers, but it isn't. If you're going to suggest a 64-bit DOSBox to play my collection of legacy DOS games, which may be too slow anyway, then it's very likely that I'll discover a faster 64-bit DOSBox for Windows and never switch to a 64-bit DOSBox for OS/2.

Recently AN did mention adding DOS sound support, which is a better niche market strategy than telling potential new customers that there's such a thing as DOSBox if they want to hear their legacy sounds.

Besides of that, mainly a browser may require a 64-bit environment in the future. Without any 16-bit and 32-bit legacy support I'll have to stop using all of my apps, to browse with a new 64-bit browser, so then I may as well switch to another 64-bit OS and renew all of my apps too.
<silence>

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version