For what operating systems do you programm in assembly? Is there any system for x86 that fasm does not support and you think should support in the future?
Posted on 2002-12-16 09:35:58 by Tomasz Grysztar
Both for Win32 and DOS.
Privalov,is it possible to redesing the DOS version of FASM for WinXP?
I don't want to use a DOS emulator,I think it's not practical.
I hope i am not agressive with the DOS problem,thanks for your herculean
efforts for developing FASM.

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2002-12-16 09:46:27 by Vortex
I'm doing programs for Win32, and I'm trying to learn to make programms under linux (trying = modifying existing exmaples to see what happens).
If I find some good tut on howno make "windows" under linux (GNOME or KDE3, or some other method) (i found some messy c++ example, but it was far too messy to understand :( ) then I'll probably make some "real" apps for Linux, but there is a lot to learn...

So, I'm programming for win32, trying to program under Linux (the same stage as I were in window$ a number of months ago...) .

Vortex, tried fasmw (the GUI one)? I love it (and it runns under Linux (in Wine) too)
Posted on 2002-12-16 23:36:31 by scientica
Vortex, FASM rans as a Win32 Console app under windows. It should run just fine under WinXP.
Posted on 2002-12-16 23:40:13 by eet_1024
hi all,
Actually I started programming for dos and know I'm programming win32 applications


amr
Posted on 2002-12-16 23:48:02 by amr

Vortex, FASM rans as a Win32 Console app under windows. It should run just fine under WinXP.


The problem is about the 16-bit DOS assembler.(FASM for DOS)
Posted on 2002-12-17 03:45:31 by Vortex
Every FASM version has the same functionality, no matter what OS is issued for.
Posted on 2002-12-17 04:15:19 by Tomasz Grysztar
In a no so far future (I hope)...http://www.openbeos.org/

I've never developped for BeOS. I have used it occassionally and I find it simply wonderful.

Personally I see a bright future also in solarOS.
Posted on 2002-12-17 05:12:18 by pelaillo
Whats really strange is that the poll shows more people code for dos than linux:eek:
Posted on 2002-12-17 08:56:05 by clippy
Yes Gladiator,some of us still coding for DOS.We like DOS,why not? :)
Posted on 2002-12-17 08:58:28 by Vortex

Yes Gladiator,some of us still coding for DOS.We like DOS,why not? :)


GUI.
Posted on 2002-12-17 09:01:23 by clippy
it (a GUI) can be made under DOS, look at win95... (it's a GUI (and bugs) on DOS :tongue: )
Posted on 2002-12-17 10:22:41 by scientica
ahem, but still i dont get why would anyone want to code for DOS. Sure GUI's can be made but so can aeroplanes:)
Why not take advantage if the existing GUI and the Win32 api. I personally dont like using interrupts over the apis.
Posted on 2002-12-17 13:48:05 by clippy

why would anyone want to code for DOS

Because he would have to run his programs on 386SX machine with 2 MB of RAM.

And please don't underestimate the power of DOS! ;)

My kelvar example runs on 386SX 2MB with VESA 1.2 compatible graphic card.
Posted on 2002-12-17 14:13:47 by Tomasz Grysztar
Well, DOS is stable, if something crashes blame the program that just ran...
(and you'd want to choose DOS when you realize it isn't M$ own, IIRC M$ had somethin' to do with CP/M...)

"Why not take advantage if the existing GUI and the Win32 api. I personally dont like using interrupts over the apis."

Well, the linux assembly isn't an option for you (int 80h, dear int 80h; AFIK you can do the must with int 80h)...
Why, becuase you might want to make an stable, nice looking, better GUI your self....
Posted on 2002-12-17 23:28:51 by scientica
Yes amigos,Win32 is the champion! (Naturally)
Posted on 2002-12-18 01:29:12 by Vortex
Why I see from 58 votes?
Posted on 2002-12-19 09:18:24 by tserk

Why I see from 58 votes?


Maybe because a moderator edited the poll... I didnt :/
Posted on 2002-12-19 09:24:33 by bazik
Because you are allowed to vote for more that one OS.
Posted on 2002-12-19 09:28:45 by Tomasz Grysztar
Ah :)
Posted on 2002-12-19 10:17:27 by bazik