Direct hardware access is practically speaking the fastest way to go,
but it is not the most maintainable approach. The problem with
using say WordPerfect or MS Word or Visicalc even, hardware is changing.
The printers of the MS-DOS era have largely been replaced by networked
printers and USB prin
Hi,
>>> 2. How do you glue the out fragments then ???
I have no idea HOW the smartness of pbzip2 works but
I do believe them that they are only 0.2% worse than
non-parallel bzip2 size performance. Works for me and
it is just VERY cool to have a factor 2, 3, 4 or 6
speed gain on a CPU with that n
> forgot to mention: FAT performance will suck if you try
> to create 6 thumb files in parallel with your 6 core CPU
Known issue. Is Linux able to share the file I/O ?
Windaube XP definitely can't (2 tasks on 1 core).
--
> Interesting, how far did they get?
public plans ...
> What stopped the plans?
Only Japheth knows ...
> No. BZIP2 has a maximum block size of 900k anyway and
Deflate and LZMA have no block limit ;-)
> > 2. How do you glue the out fragments then ???
> See above.
Not really. You don't know t
Hi!
>> I think there were some ideas about DOS extenders for using
>> multi core multithreading within DOS apps
>
> HX 2.15 + 7-ZIP ... never came out.
Interesting, how far did they get? What stopped the plans?
>> pbzip2 compresses multiple parts of a file in parallel, so you
>> can compress o
> I would imagine that Freedos in 16 bit mode can't use multiple cores
It can't actively take benefit from them, but it still runs, FYI :shock:
> One of the problems with DOS that I recall is a total
> lack of hardware protection
Right.
> Unfortunately, accessing hardware directly
> instead of
2011/8/20, Michael C. Robinson:
> A thought experiment, could a 32 bit version of Freedos with a version
> of Opengem that can support modern hardawre run on one processor
> core while dos command lines that are actually full blown dos run on
> the other processor cores? [..]
>
> It would be nice
