ed1f3755   
   From: marcov@stack.nl   
      
   On 2010-01-01, Rugxulo  wrote:   
   >> > know how much of FPC relies on DJGPP,   
   >>   
   >> Extender (go32.exe) and linker. (ld.exe). Some additional tools (like   
   >> make) are needed to build FPC, but not to use it.   
   >   
   > So it won't run without go32.exe??   
      
   Afaik no, but I haven't tested that in a decade. If I used dos I simply used   
   the install with a bunch of files in it. IIRC CWSDPMI is only required if   
   you have no DPMI provider.   
      
   > Long story short: I need to install FPC to test it a bit.    :-)   
      
   Well, take the fresh dos release of today  :-)   
      
   >> No POSIX on non Unix platforms. LFN, Delphi compat surely.   
   >   
   > With DJGPP it's different, they needed to be able to support GNU   
   > tools.   
      
   Yes, they are not wholly portable, only on top of a POSIX subsystem.   
      
   > BTW, UPX'd stuff has no penalty in DOS.   
      
   I assume under DOS it is a CPU vs disk-I/O tradeoff. But indeed UPX   
   frustrating the mapping of binaries that normal OSes have doesn't apply to   
   dos.   
      
   >> I killed off XP last november, so I'm finally floppy-free. (Vista+ don't   
   >> need floppies, XP and earlier do for some tasks)   
   >   
   > USB floppy drive ftw!! (on Vista too)   
      
   In recent years I only used floppies for bios updates or loading drivers   
   during setup of OS installs.   
      
   Since Vista, the NT side of things finally also can postload drivers from   
   mass storage devices.   
      
   >> If you care about code and RTL size? Sure I think. It has the smaller COM   
   >> memory models that afaik later TPs don't have?   
   >   
   > I worry if it's buggier due to being older. And I don't think anybody   
   > in particular prefers .COMs over .EXEs since there is no inherent   
   > advantage.   
      
   They execute faster, and are tighter? Do you need any more reasons? :-)   
      
   >> In that the question similar to "Does TP 5.5 really have any   
   >> advantage over FPC?" :-)   
   >   
   > Doubtful. Even I don't have any 286s around here (yet?? heh).   
      
   I don't even have anything x86 under a XP2000+ anymore. Actually those two   
   XP2000+'s are the only pure x86 systems that I have, all the others are   
   32/64-bit.   
      
   I do have slow machines (resp 110 and 40 MHz), but they are non-x86.   
      
   > Then again, is FPC fairly   
   > fast to compile stuff?   
      
   Compared to what? TP ? No. GCC? Yes.   
      
   > I would assume it would matter more for old (< 586)   
   > machines. How big is the default install? (I really need to test install   
   > it, heh.)   
      
   Close to 100 MB or so, but the default is full. There are ways to slim them   
   down (for dos there are individual packages). 10-25MB is probably possible,   
   and would be roughly equivalent to TP + cmdline Delphi.4   
      
   > Only for such cases (or by chance if something didn't compile with FPC)   
   > would TP55 still be a good thing. Well, and it fits compressed on a floppy   
   > too, IIRC.  ;-)   
      
   I'm a BP7 licensee, so even then I would not use TP55. But except for the   
   Turbo Vision helpfile and manual, I haven't used it since 2003, and before   
   only for minor testing.   
      
   But I had already migrated all my sources from BP to Topspeed Modula2 (on   
   Dos) before I even started with FPC. So I don't reallly have BP legacy code   
   anymore.   
      
   The only interesting part for playing is Turbo Vision (I have a soft spot   
   not so much for Dos, but for fullscreen TUI programming), and I have that in   
   FPC for 98%.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)