Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #26617 > unrolled thread

The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2025-02-24 01:03 +0000
    Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-24 07:52 +0000
      Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt John McCue <jmccue@reddwf.jmcunx.com> - 2025-02-24 19:28 +0000
        Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:38 -0300
          Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-25 02:19 -0400
            Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 07:54 +0000
              Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 04:31 -0400
                Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-26 19:52 +0000
                  Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 17:24 -0400
                    Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-26 21:46 +0000
                Re: The Lisa D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-28 07:47 -0600
                Re: The Lisa mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2025-02-28 14:48 +0000
                  Re: The Lisa Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:47 +0000
                Re: The Lisa (was: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-28 16:38 -0400
                Re: The Lisa (was: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-28 16:07 -0500
                  Re: The Lisa (was: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:42 +0000
                Re: The Lisa (was: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:46 +0000
                  Re: The Lisa D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-03-03 08:40 -0600
                Re: The Lisa (was: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 22:24 +0000
          Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-25 07:28 +0000
            Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 08:02 +0000
              Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-25 08:57 +0000
                Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 20:36 +0000
                  Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-25 20:54 +0000
                    Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-25 22:00 +0000
                    Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 22:51 +0000
          Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2025-02-25 16:50 +0000
            Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:54 -0300
              Re: The DOS 3.3 SYS.COM Bug Hunt Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2025-02-25 22:34 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#26664

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:28:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Raspberry Pi sort of wanted to revive that simpler times, but it only
> works with a higher level language (Python); (ARM assembly is
> notoriously obscure).

Now days the definition of “low-level” programming is using a language 
like C. Note also that the Pi, being a full Linux system, has access to 
all the range of languages available in any major Linux distro. Maybe you 
want to try C++ or D instead of C? Ada? Smalltalk? Really want to get your 
hands dirty an old-style assembly language, for some vintage architecture 
like the PDP-11? Apple II? Altair 8800? IBM 1401? Software emulators for 
all of these are available.

Modern assembly/machine language is the way it is because it’s designed 
for compilers to generate efficient code, not for humans to understand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26665

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:02:04 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:28:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> 
> > Raspberry Pi sort of wanted to revive that simpler times, but it only
> > works with a higher level language (Python); (ARM assembly is
> > notoriously obscure).
> 
> Now days the definition of “low-level” programming is using a language 
> like C. Note also that the Pi, being a full Linux system, has access to 
> all the range of languages available in any major Linux distro. Maybe you 
> want to try C++ or D instead of C? Ada? Smalltalk? Really want to get your 
> hands dirty an old-style assembly language, for some vintage architecture 
> like the PDP-11? Apple II? Altair 8800? IBM 1401? Software emulators for 
> all of these are available.
> 
> Modern assembly/machine language is the way it is because it’s designed 
> for compilers to generate efficient code, not for humans to understand.

Bu that was the thrill of those early home computers; wrestling
the cpu into doing your bidding and really getting to understand the
fundamentals.

Disclaimer: I never can quite grasp logic diagrams with NAND gates. I
follow the steps, see it for a moment, then fail to "really understand the
fundamentals".

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26688

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:57:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Bu that was the thrill of those early home computers; wrestling the cpu
> into doing your bidding and really getting to understand the
> fundamentals.

Which is exactly the kind of thing the Raspberry Pi was designed to help 
recreate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26689

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:36:41 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:57:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> 
> > Bu that was the thrill of those early home computers; wrestling the cpu
> > into doing your bidding and really getting to understand the
> > fundamentals.
> 
> Which is exactly the kind of thing the Raspberry Pi was designed to help 
> recreate.

My point was that that was the intention, and they chose Python as the
medium; actual ARM assembler is too difficult for beginners. 

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26691

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote at 20:54 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:36:41 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:57:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> 
>> > Bu that was the thrill of those early home computers; wrestling the cpu
>> > into doing your bidding and really getting to understand the
>> > fundamentals.
>> 
>> Which is exactly the kind of thing the Raspberry Pi was designed to help 
>> recreate.
>
> My point was that that was the intention, and they chose Python as the
> medium; actual ARM assembler is too difficult for beginners. 


Agreed, ARM (and thumb) can be pretty dang confusing sometimes.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26695

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:54:28 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:36:41 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:57:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> 
>>> Bu that was the thrill of those early home computers; wrestling the
>>> cpu into doing your bidding and really getting to understand the
>>> fundamentals.
>> 
>> Which is exactly the kind of thing the Raspberry Pi was designed to
>> help recreate.
> 
> My point was that that was the intention, and they chose Python as the
> medium; actual ARM assembler is too difficult for beginners.

There is nothing about the Raspberry Pi that forces you to use Python, or 
ARM assembler.

Eben Upton’s group originally wanted to build a machine that could only 
run Python code; but they discovered it was actually cheaper to make it a 
full-fledged general-purpose Linux machine. And so it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26679

On 2025-02-25, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote:
> I never used DOS as a programmer, so it wasn't nostalgic to me, but I
> enjoyed seeing how simpler things were back then and how programs like
> debug could help you to see what was going on.  I was reading about 6502
> assembly recently and I became very interested in getting closer to that
> simplicity.  The booklet author remarked that modern x86 assembly isn't
> really meant for programmers, but compilers.  I had never really thought
> of that, but it made a lot of sense to me.  So maybe I should indeed
> look into an older, simpler machine to enjoy the low level of things.

To validate your post: I think some C=64 retro-enthusiasts who have
never touched a real C=64, and the same can be said of other 8-bit
platforms.  Once for fun i wrote a program for the ZX Spectrum, and i
did not have access to the real hardware. Though i can remember
tinkering with a Timex Sinclair 1000.

For that matter, 8bitworkshop supports both C=64 and ZX Spectrum
development in corporate web browsers.

http://8bitworkshop.com/

See also:

https://x64.halb.it/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26685

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:

> On 2025-02-25, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote:
>> I never used DOS as a programmer, so it wasn't nostalgic to me, but I
>> enjoyed seeing how simpler things were back then and how programs like
>> debug could help you to see what was going on.  I was reading about 6502
>> assembly recently and I became very interested in getting closer to that
>> simplicity.  The booklet author remarked that modern x86 assembly isn't
>> really meant for programmers, but compilers.  I had never really thought
>> of that, but it made a lot of sense to me.  So maybe I should indeed
>> look into an older, simpler machine to enjoy the low level of things.
>
> To validate your post: I think some C=64 retro-enthusiasts who have
> never touched a real C=64, and the same can be said of other 8-bit
> platforms.  Once for fun i wrote a program for the ZX Spectrum, and i
> did not have access to the real hardware. Though i can remember
> tinkering with a Timex Sinclair 1000.
>
> For that matter, 8bitworkshop supports both C=64 and ZX Spectrum
> development in corporate web browsers.
>
> http://8bitworkshop.com/
>
> See also:
>
> https://x64.halb.it/

Very cool stuff!  But I'd believe I have a certain bug to expose
relative to 8bitworkshop.com.  The machine screen first appears with a
beautiful logo and then eventually it looks like an old buggy TV with
red lanes going up the screen:

  https://0x0.st/8AwL.png

This is Firefox 133.0.3 (amd64) on OpenBSD 7.6.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26694

On 2025-02-25, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote:
> Very cool stuff!  But I'd believe I have a certain bug to expose
> relative to 8bitworkshop.com.  The machine screen first appears with a
> beautiful logo and then eventually it looks like an old buggy TV with
> red lanes going up the screen:
>
>   https://0x0.st/8AwL.png
>
> This is Firefox 133.0.3 (amd64) on OpenBSD 7.6.

I believe the red lanes are part of the demo.  For example, i can change
the select box from 4. Hello 6502 and TIA to 19. Collisions and it shows
a sprite of a person on the ground and a smaller sprite bouncing around.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web