Opl4 and DOS2

Page 1/3
| 2 | 3

By msd

Paragon (1472)

msd's picture

14-09-2003, 14:19

A few years ago I made a driver version of the mwm replayer and it only runs under dos2. Some people complained about this .. why dos2 only .. bla bla.. . I wonder how many people that have an opl4 don't have dos2?

Login or register to post comments

By hap

Paragon (2040)

hap's picture

14-09-2003, 14:29

me, but i don't need an mwm replayer driver

By msd

Paragon (1472)

msd's picture

14-09-2003, 14:42

My driver is not the only opl4 software that only runs under dos2. Meridian is also dos2 only

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

14-09-2003, 16:07

I think MSX-DOS2 should be the new standard anyway. It's time to move away from the old floppy and CP/M era.

By Arjan

Paladin (766)

Arjan's picture

14-09-2003, 16:12

I don't have DOS2 either, but then again I'm not complaining since I don't need that driver anyway (except for the code Tongue ).

Also, I don't see why Meridian needs DOS2, except for the fact it's easier to support just DOS2 instead of supporting both DOS1 and DOS2. But for some reason I think people accept this with Meridian because it's a very big program anyway, or maybe everyone who wants to use it can run it anyway.

By msd

Paragon (1472)

msd's picture

14-09-2003, 16:22

Once you have coded with file handles and stuff like that you don't want to go back to fcb cpm shit.. and offcourse developing something for dos2 is less work.. Aonther great benifit is that dos2 programms run on every msx configuration. A lot of programms that have their own memory management don't run on every msx configuration.

By sjoerd

Hero (602)

sjoerd's picture

14-09-2003, 20:42

I have an opl4 but I don't use dos2. I have only one diskdrive and don't see why I should use dos2. A program will have to be very good and very useful to 'force' me to use dos2. I think it's better to let the user decide which version of dos he uses.
Your mwm replayer driver isn't interesting enough for me to switch to dos2, and neither is Meridian (But I would say that, wouldn't I Smile ).

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

14-09-2003, 22:40

A program will have to be very good and very useful to 'force' me to use dos2. I think it's better to let the user decide which version of dos he uses.
So you force the programmer to write 2 versions? That's maintanance hell.

By sjoerd

Hero (602)

sjoerd's picture

15-09-2003, 00:27

Maintanace hell? Doesn't have to. Why isn't it possible to support dos1 and dos2 from the same program? No need for two versions, IMO.
Forcing people to use dos2 won't work at all. Should I, as an user, switch to dos2 because programmers are too lazy to make things work with dos1? If someone decides to make a program dos2 only, I might try it one time, but as I said it should be very good to make me switch cartridges all the time. Maybe when I get that slotexpander I promised myself long ago...

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

15-09-2003, 02:47

Forcing people to use dos2 won't work at all. Should I, as an user, switch to dos2 because programmers are too lazy to make things work with dos1? If someone decides to make a program dos2 only, I might try it one time, but as I said it should be very good to make me switch cartridges all the time. Maybe when I get that slotexpander I promised myself long ago...
You can always have the DOS2 built in. Most IDE/SCSI interfaces have DOS2 built in too.
DOS2 has great new features, not taking advantage of them is just stupid. So without having to maintain two versions, your program will always have to work with the lowest common denominator, DOS1, which sucks.

By sjoerd

Hero (602)

sjoerd's picture

15-09-2003, 14:10

So without having to maintain two versions, your program will always have to work with the lowest common denominator, DOS1, which sucks.I guess my programs will have to suck then.

Page 1/3
| 2 | 3