Re: LYNX-DEV DOS, DOS and Windows

[Wayne Buttles]

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Rob Pelkey wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Egor Egorov wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Wayne Buttles wrote:
> > > From my limited understanding of compilers, a true plain DOS port of 
> > > the current Lynx2-6 is not possible because some of the obj files
> > > generated are bigger than 64k.  If Lynx were restructured there might
> > > be a chance, but a drastic change would take some co-ordination among
> > > the masses.  It also generates a very big image--maybe too big to run
> > > on a low end machine without optimizations.
> 
> Couldn't you get around this by splitting up the individual .OBJ files
> into multiple segments (if you used the proper memory model)?  From my
> understanding individual .OBJ files aren't what's limited to 64K, it's the
> individual code/data/stack segments within those files that are limited -
> I don't know whether you can break up code into multiple segments within
> an .OBJ file, though.  My understanding of DOS compilers is rather
> limited, not having done much above "Hello World" in Turbo C for
> Windows...  (in console mode... :-)) 
> 

Yes, it might be possible if you restructure the lynx code, but this is
exactly my main point--you can't stay concurrent with the real codebase.
I bet a lynx2-6 would be a big exe too...over a meg at least.

My starting vision for a better lynx running on an XT is to have a
`fairly' good ability to handle most web pages, have forms
capabilities, be curses based and be able to spawn helper apps.  

Wayne.

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;