Maker Pro
Maker Pro

89C51ED2

R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
What a silly comment. DOS is the only stable product ever to come from Microsoft.

Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$
just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all
the rest.

Cheers!
Rich
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's a bugger isn't it ? It can give so much useful background. I got given my 8051 /
8048 handbook as a present in 1985 and it was a few years old then.

Watch the old ones. There were some pretty big errors in them. One
took me weeks to find. Actually, my boss found it when he took a
new databook home to read up on what I was *trying* to do. My copy
had a glaring error in the power saving section. The later copy had
it corrected.
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
You can use R0-7 if you never absolutely address them as AR0-7.

Which was my point. If they're addressed as memory address, no
problem with USING or PSW bits set any wich way.
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why would I need a USB driver for DOS itself ?

If you're running DOS on your machine. Otherwise you're still
running Windows, with all the crap that entails.

Nope. Applications crash when the OS does.
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$
just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all
the rest.

The IBM versions of DOS were far better.
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
You'd trust a kid out of Uni to be able to do that ?

I wouldn't trust a kid out of Uni with any product firmware.
Let me tell you, there's a guy I know whose previous job was technical director of Pace microsystems
(he's technical director somewhere else now) , the satellite and cable receiver box people.

Because I was fairly heavily loaded he was asked as a then sideline (before Pace) to write the code for
an app we had. He wanted to use one his favourite Mitsubishi uCs and write it in assembler. I TOLD him
it would be an 80C51 and PL/M. At the end of the project he said "I understand why now".

He was obviously a crappy assembler programmer with no understanding
of the 8051.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$
just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all
the rest.

Digital Research produced CP/M (PL/M's companion). Funnily enough, the early Amstrad
1512 PC 'clone' bit highly integrated came with both DOS 3.x and CP/M with it's GUI
whose name eludes me now.

It's rumoured that the only reason IBM didn't chose CP/M is that Gary Kildall didn't
want to meet their suits.

DOS/ IBM DOS was original QDOS IIRC from another company that MS bought it off.
Doubtless Google will have the details.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
krw said:
[email protected] says...

Watch the old ones. There were some pretty big errors in them. One
took me weeks to find. Actually, my boss found it when he took a
new databook home to read up on what I was *trying* to do. My copy
had a glaring error in the power saving section. The later copy had
it corrected.

Interesting point. Never been caught out though. It's great in the depth of its coverage too,
far more than any single data sheet. I'll retrieve it shortly. It's about 30 mi away.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
krw said:
[email protected] says...

If you're running DOS on your machine. Otherwise you're still
running Windows, with all the crap that entails.

Not quite sure what you're driving at. I do actually have an 'archive' PC running DOS 5.0
available for the true purist.

Nope. Applications crash when the OS does.

That was exactly my point. Although nowadays both will crash quite happily. Maybe they
should get married ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
krw said:
[email protected] says...

PC-DOS was from IBM. MS-DOS from M$.

DR-DOS from Digital Research came along much later. They'd produced CP/M before that
though that would run DOS programs. It had a simple GUI too that reninded me of Xerox
Stars. Atari ? used the GUI. Still can't remember the name.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
krw said:
[email protected] says...

I wouldn't trust a kid out of Uni with any product firmware.

Very wise. I had a great job out of one graduate's attempt at hardware. It was part of a radar actually, a
spiral scan display ( r, theta) which was quite clever in its own way but on a 110 degree deflection tube with
an offset origin ? Guess what happened ?

(he's technical director somewhere else now) , the satellite and cable receiver > box people.
an app we had. He wanted to use one his favourite Mitsubishi uCs and write it in > assembler. I TOLD him it
would be an 80C51 and PL/M. At the end of the project he said "I > understand why now".

He was obviously a crappy assembler programmer with no understanding
of the 8051.

He's actually excellent. He did do one job for use with a Mitsubishi micro in assembler but my insistence
(since I'd have to maintain it) made him realise the strengths of both the 8051 and PL/M. And I had to do a
lot maintenance on that version too. It ended up as V 2.7

When I partially rewrote it for the successor prooduct they all shipped with a beta release since I was sure
*someone* would find a bug so I could smugly update it to V 1.0 but no-one ever did find a bug so every one of
them has V 0.9.

Grahan
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
donald said:
From link above:

"History

The original 1981 arrangement between IBM and Microsoft was that
_Microsoft_would_provide_ the base product and that both firms would
work on developing different parts of it into a more powerful and robust
system, and then share the resultant code. MS-DOS and PC-DOS were to be
marketed separately: IBM selling to itself for the IBM PC, and Microsoft
selling to the open market. However, at no time did IBM acquire the
ownership of the source code of the operating system for its own PCs."

Reminds me. What was IBM's GUI ? Many say it was vastly superior to Windows. I've seen it
once or twice. Wasn't it 32 bit from the off ? They fell out over it didn't they ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert said:
Case in point..Pawn Shops use software to manage their inventory as
well as create reports for the BATF on demand.
Almost all of them $pend thousands of dollars for fancy WinDoze
programs that appear to do a half-way reasonable job, except...the damn
OS crashes more than once a week on a semi-ranDUMB basis.
There are a few that use not-so-fancy DOS programs, some of which
give moer realistic support...and never crash (well, except when the
power goes out).

I can well believe it. Stuff didn't seem to crash much under W3.1(1) either IIRC. But
then it used DOS of course.

Graham
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
From link above:

"History

The original 1981 arrangement between IBM and Microsoft was that
_Microsoft_would_provide_ the base product and that both firms would
work on developing different parts of it into a more powerful and robust
system, and then share the resultant code. MS-DOS and PC-DOS were to be
marketed separately: IBM selling to itself for the IBM PC, and Microsoft
selling to the open market. However, at no time did IBM acquire the
ownership of the source code of the operating system for its own PCs."

That is wrong, at least the way its written (and you understand it).
IBM wrote its own PC DOS 3x and beyond. There were elements that
were M$ property, just like there were elements of OS/2 that were M
$ property, but the source code was IBMs and very different from
what M$' delivered with similar version numbers.
 
N

nospam

Jan 1, 1970
0
donald said:

OS/2 wasn't 32 bit from the off, rather the opposite.

IBM insisted that OS/2 ran on brain dead 80286's in many soon to be
obsolete PS/2 boxes owned by their hardware customers. That crippled its
ability to run DOS applications.

At the same time Microsoft embraced the 80386 and its virtualisation
capabilities with Windows/386 and later Windows 3.0 which allowed you to
run and multitask many DOS application alongside native Windows
applications.

IMO IBM's decision to provide backwards hardware compatibility for boxes
that would be obsolete within months at the expensive of backwards software
compatibility for applications which would remain useful for many years was
one of the most profound in the history of personal computing. It
effectively killed the only competition Windows had allowing it to
establish an insurmountable user and application base which remains today.
--
 
Top