Message-ID:

Most legends have their basis in facts. -- Kirk, "And The Children Shall Lead", stardate 5029.5

devel / comp.os.msdos.programmer / rules

rules

<uqulug$1n4m7$1@dont-email.me>

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=672&group=comp.os.msdos.programmer#672

copy link Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.network!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mutazilah@gmail.com (Paul Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: rules
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:37:33 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <uqulug$1n4m7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 04:37:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="97519e64dc15b4ab0347e16ac3f2946b";
logging-data="1807047"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BpxffWom2S5Vk01gIXElt4JDbHQfpSR0="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; Warp 4.5; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tfJLXX1id1LhyhQU9qswiGS202M=
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.eternal-september.org:119

by: Paul Edwards - Mon, 19 Feb 2024 04:37 UTC

Assuming I had followed these rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode

This was not without its limitations. If an application utilized or
relied on any of the techniques below, it would not run:

Segment arithmetic
Privileged instructions
Direct hardware access
Writing to a code segment
Executing data
Overlapping segments
Use of BIOS functions, due to the BIOS interrupts being reserved by
Intel[31]
In reality, almost all DOS application programs violated these rules

.... what could I actually do, assuming I had
an 80286 computer?

"binary compatibility with real-mode code" - sounds good.

"the ability to access up to 16 MB of physical memory, and 1 GB of
virtual memory" - sounds good.

But ... WHERE?

Is this something I could do on OS/2 1.x?

With an MZ executable? A .com?

What are they advertising?

NE executables didn't exist except on MSDOS 4.0,
which may or may not buy something. Is that what
they are advertising?

I didn't use OS/2 1.x, but it may have had an
MSDOS window and an MSDOS fullscreen.

Did something work on either of those if you
followed "the rules"?

As opposed to a program that DIDN'T follow
the rules, e.g. it wouldn't run in the window.

Thanks. Paul.

Re: rules

<m0wj0hgiqbvn.36h8aydmv8t8.dlg@40tude.net>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=673&group=comp.os.msdos.programmer#673

copy link Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: jj4public@outlook.com (JJ)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: rules
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 02:59:39 +0700
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <m0wj0hgiqbvn.36h8aydmv8t8.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <uqulug$1n4m7$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1752154"; posting-host="z6CdWPi1SKex7i7ZAl344A.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha256:j93GaHfsCrdOcCP3iUlXjXZZgvEvhNK4xJGXWLEWjqs=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
X-Bitcoin: 1LcqwCQBQmhcWfWsVEAeyLchkAY8ZfuMnS
X-Face: \*\`0(1j~VfYC>ebz[&O.]=,Nm\oRM{of,liRO#7Eqi4|!]!(Gs=Akgh{J)605>C9Air?pa d{sSZ09u+A7f<^paR"/NH_#<mE1S"hde\c6PZLUB[t/s5-+Iu5DSc?P0+4%,Hl

by: JJ - Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:59 UTC

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:37:33 +0800, Paul Edwards wrote:
> Assuming I had followed these rules:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode
>
> This was not without its limitations. If an application utilized or
> relied on any of the techniques below, it would not run:
>
> Segment arithmetic
> Privileged instructions
> Direct hardware access
> Writing to a code segment
> Executing data
> Overlapping segments
> Use of BIOS functions, due to the BIOS interrupts being reserved by
> Intel[31]
> In reality, almost all DOS application programs violated these rules
>
> .... what could I actually do, assuming I had
> an 80286 computer?
>
> "binary compatibility with real-mode code" - sounds good.
>
> "the ability to access up to 16 MB of physical memory, and 1 GB of
> virtual memory" - sounds good.
>
> But ... WHERE?
>
> Is this something I could do on OS/2 1.x?
>
> With an MZ executable? A .com?
>
> What are they advertising?
>
> NE executables didn't exist except on MSDOS 4.0,
> which may or may not buy something. Is that what
> they are advertising?
>
> I didn't use OS/2 1.x, but it may have had an
> MSDOS window and an MSDOS fullscreen.
>
> Did something work on either of those if you
> followed "the rules"?
>
> As opposed to a program that DIDN'T follow
> the rules, e.g. it wouldn't run in the window.
>
> Thanks. Paul.

A compatibility layer program would be needed to make programs usable in
non-compatible environment - to work like a subsystem. In PM OS, it may need
to be run at a priviledge level which is high enough to perform its task -
depending on whether a task require higher privilege level or not.

e.g. adding support for non OS native executable binary format will require
system service/function hooking if the OS doesn't support custom executable
binary format loader. OS native executable binary loader usually run at
higher privilege level.