[CQ-Contest] Re: Future for DOS programs

[Kevin Bier, K7VI]

Hi, Bob!

Without taking a deep look at how the I/O drivers are set up under Win98,
I'd guess that yeah, it's just as difficult as Win95.  They're still
essentially the same beast.  Lots of old Win3.x kernel/user code in there.

It's a very different proposition to run semi-realtime processes under any
task-sharing OS (like Windows) vs. a dedicated processor OS (like DOS).
Porting CT to Windows would be bizarre at best.  Likely, a lot of the smart
database and sorting stuff would port fine, but none of the display or port
control stuff would.  That's a complete rewrite, except maybe for a little
bit of the logic.  It's a big job.

Still, I have to believe that it CAN be done.  Audio and video are pretty
demanding applications, too.  This might be a good project for some of us
(me, too) to look into.

73 Kevin K7VI

--
At 09:03 AM 1/19/98 -0800, ROBERT WANDERER wrote:
>In an earlier post, but possibly not to this reflector, Ken Wolf K1EA
>said that he couldn't port CT over to Windows because it wouldn't
>key CW correctly (timing) as did DOS. Would Win98 be the same
>situation?
>73, Bob AA0CY <aa0cy at contesting.com>
>
>----------
>From:  Wes Attaway[SMTP:wes at prysm.net]
>Sent:  Sunday, January 18, 1998 8:47 PM
>To:  cq-contest at contesting.com; Kevin Bier, K7VI
>Subject:  Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: Future for DOS programs
>
>During the course of this thread several people have said they don't see
>much need to move to Win98, even implying that to do so would be to invite
>trouble.  I have been using various beta versions of Win98 for several
>months (now on Beta 3) and can see a number of reasons to run out and get
>it as soon as you can.  First, even the Beta version is much more stable
>than Win95 ..... it rarely crashes and if a program does stop responding
>Win98 normally makes a smooth recovery.  Second, the user interface
>incorporates numerous new features that collectively add a lot of operating
>efficiency to the system once you get used to them.  Third, a number of new
>system services are (or will be) supported, including the Universal Serial
>Bus (USB).  The USB has been something of a flop up to now because no
>operating system supports it.  This should change fairly rapidly once Win98
>is released.  I think Win98 is already a much better system than Win95 and
>it isn't even finished.  Currently here at my house, we have a small NT
>network running with a Win95 WS, a Win98 WS, a Win NT Workstation, and an
>NT server.  The network is mostly for my computer consulting and service
>business, but I have the hamshack tied into it.  I alternate between Win95
>and Win98 here in the shack ...... mostly to get experience with the
>differences between them.  I can tell you that Win98 is the way to go, if
>you are running Windows or DOS software.  NT Workstation is real nice, but
>I have run into problems with it in several ham radio programs, including
>some that send CW via the serial or parallel port.
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com