Article View: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Article #1396Re: Why ms-dos is non reentrant
From: fred j mccall 575-3539
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 22:00
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 22:00
17 lines
1397 bytes
1397 bytes
In <1992Sep4.061954.24900@zooid.guild.org> ross@zooid.guild.org (Ross Ridge) writes: >>MSDOS 4.00 allowed one foreground and up to 30 background tasks (limited by >>conventional memory), with interprocess communications, semaphores, >>scheduling, etc. And it supported asynchronous device drivers, where the >>split into strategy and interrupt routines actually meant something. >Do you think any of MS-DOS 4.00 will make it in to a future multitasking >MS-DOS or will they just ignore it? Didn't this (sort of) eventually grow up to become OS/2 1.0? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep9.220042.28496@mksol.dseg.ti.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccallReferences:
<1992Sep1.160133.19060@mits.mdata.fi> <1992Sep2.065315.19027@zooid.guild.org> <BtzE9H.53G.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep4.061954.24900@zooid.guild.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: Why ms-dos is non reentrant Message-ID: <1992Sep9.220042.28496@mksol.dseg.ti.com> Organization: Texas Instruments Inc References: <1992Sep1.160133.19060@mits.mdata.fi> <1992Sep2.065315.19027@zooid.guild.org> <BtzE9H.53G.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep4.061954.24900@zooid.guild.org> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:00:42 GMT Lines: 17