flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > decard.net down?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
pomJ



Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 3
pomJ
I'm new to assembly and I'm scanning the forum (and the net) for information on assembly in general and fasm in particular.

I've found links to decard.net regarding more extensive win32 include files and other articles, however the site seems to be unavailable so my question is this is permanent and if it is, if the files/articles are hosted somewhere else.

cheers
/michael
Post 20 Feb 2007, 12:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
http://web.archive.org/web/20060212104616/http://www.decard.net/

The last scan of web archive is of February 12th 2006. Pretty old, or the site goes down long time ago or web archive stop scanning it.
Post 20 Feb 2007, 12:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
pomJ



Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 3
pomJ
GREAT !!

Thank's alot.
Post 20 Feb 2007, 13:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Need any of these?

Code:
11,356 decard-asm2html.zip
 5,534 decard-base64.zip
 7,591 decard-huffman.zip
 2,351 decard-listbox.zip
13,552 decard-lzss.zip
47,308 decard-noteit.zip
 3,139 decard-tray.zip
=====================
 90,831 bytes
    
Post 20 Feb 2007, 22:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
i would like copy of my old tutorial please Very Happy
Post 20 Feb 2007, 23:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
yumka



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Tenochtitlan
yumka
Some of that stuff is inside Fresh IDE

http://fresh.flatassembler.net/

If you want the TAJGA FASM Tutorial

I have it, but no idea if it is outdated.


Description: TAJGA FASM Tutorial
Download
Filename: FasmTutor.zip
Filesize: 44.15 KB
Downloaded: 142 Time(s)


_________________
rofl eax,eax
Post 20 Feb 2007, 23:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
thanks...
for sure it's now outdated... it starts with DOS stuff.

I was right at a time that starting with DOS is better for assembly, but now i think that it's not good to push people back to DOS.
Post 21 Feb 2007, 00:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
vid wrote:
thanks...
for sure it's now outdated... it starts with DOS stuff.

I was right at a time that starting with DOS is better for assembly, but now i think that it's not good to push people back to DOS.


Well, Vista isn't even as gfx compatible with DOS demos (e.g. Hugi) as XP!

However, at least DOS is a common API, and stuff written for it will mostly run either in Windows or OS/2 or FreeDOS or DOSBox. (Or you could say PE .EXEs will run in HXRT or Wine or Windows ... or Linux will run on Linux or BSD or Cygwin.)
Post 21 Feb 2007, 01:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
vid wrote:

Quote:
I was right at a time that starting with DOS is better for assembly, but now i think that it's not good to push people back to DOS.


This is an obsolete approach. Now you can no longer push "back" to DOS,
rather forward to DOS.

Quote:
You only need to know how to use the command line (command.com in DOS/win95/98, cmd in winNT/XP). Some programming knowledge is very helpful, but not nescessary.

What OS?
I decided to write tutorial for DOS, because it allows you to use whole your machine however you wish, unlike Windoze


This is simply wrong. There is no DOS inside Windoze, and

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=5626 Shocked

you push people ^^^ into problems (there are MANY such topics
in various forums around)

Also .CHM is maybe not the preferred text format for DOS Confused

Nowadays, DOS a a standalone alternative OS Wink , not a toy inside Windoze Sad

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 21 Feb 2007, 04:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
pomJ



Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 3
pomJ
vid wrote:
i would like copy of my old tutorial please Very Happy


I got this from the link to the webarchive above.


Description:
Download
Filename: tajga-tut.zip
Filesize: 50.9 KB
Downloaded: 134 Time(s)

Post 21 Feb 2007, 09:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yumka



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Tenochtitlan
yumka
But DOS is almost dead.

If somobody still be developing it, let say to be a 32 bit console OS, maybe some of us would be interested in it. But is a 16 bit downgraded unix like clon bad done.

Sorry for the CHM, i forgot other OSes users.

By the way 7-Zip is able to unpack CHM to it's original content files.

www.7-zip.org
Post 21 Feb 2007, 21:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
DOS isn't dead, and there are 32-bit DOSes. Besides, FreeDOS 1.0 just came out fairly recently, and they still plan on adding more things. And don't forget various DJGPP lib/tool ports, HXRT, DOSLFN, MAME, and FASMD (among other things) that are still supported.

P.S. Yes, there are indeed quite a few projects that are dropping DOS support soon (or already have, like Raine or Crafty). This is due more to the developers losing interest and being too busy with other things (as well as their naive bias against DOS).

EDIT: Does DOSBox or DOSEMU count? Those two projects are reasons why DOS boot floppies aren't used as much (well, that plus some cpus don't have the drive!).
Post 21 Feb 2007, 21:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
yumka



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Tenochtitlan
yumka
What you can do in DOS better than in Windows/Unix?

Even CPU's are optimized to execute 32-bit code, so DOS16 is not even faster than their windows or linux ports.

Even modest computers like 486 could execute a micro-frebsd wich requiere 4 mb of RAM.

In my opinion is better a unix shell than DOS.

I just see one thing in which DOS could have a roll today: EDUCATION.

1. Education, as first experience for kids programming logo. Very Happy

2. Education to poor countries that can't affort big investments in new technology. (little usefull if $100 computer becomes massive)

3. Education of system internals and intel architecture, computer organization, and retated stuff in university studies.

None real world application, benefits from DOS today.

Of course if you like/love it that's fine, like Amiga or Atari fans.
Post 21 Feb 2007, 22:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
EDIT: Does DOSBox or DOSEMU count?


And NTVDM ? Not for me Sad Sad

Quote:
reasons why DOS boot floppies aren't used as much (well, that plus some cpus don't have the drive!).


Some machines rather than CPU's. Idea You can install DOS nervertheles from
a CD or with some luck USB drive. After formatting the 500 GB HD covered
with 1 (one !!!) NTFS partition over all the 500 GB Laughing

Considering the DRM/WGA/TCPA/HOG frustration on Vista

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=6703

and dropping support for Windaube 98/ME (and 2K soon), DOS becomes
more and more an alternative Wink There are already some apps working
on DOS but no longer on Win ME/98 Shocked

Quote:
What you can do in DOS better than in Windows/Unix?


Protect your privacy maybe Shocked

Quote:
CPU's are optimized to execute 32-bit code, so DOS16 is not even faster than their windows or linux ports.


True. But there are 32-bit DOS apps and 32-bit DOS'es Shocked
Fater than Winux/Lindows ports Shocked

Quote:
computers like 486 could execute a micro-frebsd wich requiere 4 mb of RAM.


Like the QEMU test HD image ? And what can you do in it ?

Quote:
(little usefull if $100 computer becomes massive)


OK. Last problem to solve: provide a black hole eating all the" old"
Vista-incompliant <2GHz machines Laughing

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 21 Feb 2007, 23:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yumka



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Tenochtitlan
yumka
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:
Protect your privacy maybe Shocked


There is no privacy, especially if you use electronic devices.

And what can you do in DOS?

Vista is not everything, between DOS16 and Vista are many good cost/benefit options.

If i need an old OS, i certanly prefered windows 2000 or NT 4.0.

NT 4.0 boots in seconds and need just 16 mb of RAM. For many things is pretty stable and cool.

If need/wants directx and joystick support there is Windows 2000, i like it more than XP.

Many people are interested in extended support for it, so it's probably have some kind of support in the future.

The is also Unofficial ServicePack 5 for Windows 2000.

But DOS support is almost dead. AFAIK the DOS port is no longer de main develpment plataform of any project. MAME, Rain, and even FASM offer support for it, but it is not the main development plataform.

But i respect all of you that love DOS and want it alive forever. Just not my case.

_________________
rofl eax,eax
Post 21 Feb 2007, 23:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
yumka, you don't understand. No size fits all. Nothing "new" is better at everything. Compatibility fades because people just don't care (ahem, dash vs. bash anyone?). We would all still be using 486s (and comfortably, I might add) if developers would target them, but most OSes do NOT run (well, if at all) on a 486. My first 486 ran King's Quest 6 (an excellent commercial game, cost $1 mil to make), but 7 required a Pentium (and for no good reason either). It your old cpu still works, why throw it out??

People just don't care, they'd rather do things their way even if it only works on 10% of computers than work in multiple OSes. "Needs x and y and z" is usually unnecessary. Bad design, too many resources, not enough care I guess (IMO). Mouses, windows, networking, it's just layer upon layer upon layer (C++ or C's fault?? maybe, maybe not) which eventually bloats everything if not handled well. (I'm not saying everything is crap, but it could be much better.)

Who likes having to rely on GCC 3.x or MSVC Express for everything? (Bloat city!) Who wouldn't prefer that their older Pentium also ran XP? The whole "configure/make/install" thing can be a pain, and DLL hell is still a problem. Just because we have faster processors, more memory, and bigger storage doesn't mean we've truly advanced and learned from our mistakes.

I'm not talking about market share or business use or any of that garbage (but see Cash Register). I'm simply saying that DOS does some things and does them well. It is a "paradigm" (? ... see PocketDOS), not just a single product (e.g. MS-DOS). Windows or OS/2 are the continuing results of trying to commercially sell and improve it, as are a few other "distros". Can you make a useful Windows floppy boot disk? Can your preferred Linux distro these days run on a 486? No.

Runs on 16-bit cpus, non-graphical CLI, short filenames, no virtual memory ... Are we talking about DOS? Nope, Minix 2.x (which can run within DOS)! Smile Surely I think "DOS" is as good as that is or was (way better apps, too: Arachne, Mpxplay, GCC/G++, VIM, VILE, GNU Emacs, OpenGEM, Scream Tracker, Impulse Tracker, Fast Tracker 2, SJGPlay, DOS Navigator, DOSLFN, DesqView, UHarc, Wolf3d, Doom, Quake, ROTT ($), Ken's Labyrinth, BioMenace, Duke3d ($?), Ardi's Executor (??), Pixel ($) image editor, etc. ... some of these are still sold!). Are these not "real world" enough? Are OSes other than "Windows/Unix" not valid these days?

Main development platform? It could be, how would you know otherwise? Just because something targets multiple OSes first doesn't mean any port is useless. The only port that is useless is either a broken one or a non-existant one. Not everyone ports to DOS, but that's their fault, not DOS's. DOS support ain't dead as long as DJGPP, OpenWatcom, FreeBASIC, FPC, HXRT, etc. still support it. (Way, WAY too many apps work w/ DJGPP to call DOS support "dead" ... unless you have an x64 port of Windows, then you're screwed without DOSBox or QEMU, BOCHS, etc.)

EDIT: "unix shell better than DOS"? What about 4DOS or the DJGPP ports of bash, Perl, Python, Lynx, p7zip, etc.? Do those not count? Ruby can multithread in DOS, too.

P.S. 700th post, this is! Good thing it shows my appreciation for DOS! Laughing
Post 22 Feb 2007, 19:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Who likes having to rely on GCC 3.x or MSVC Express for everything?

unfortunately, in some areas (lot of boring procedure calls) they can perform better than average assembly code.
Post 23 Feb 2007, 00:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
yumka



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Tenochtitlan
yumka
I understand your point rugxulo, and of course there is people for everything. Not all need a DeepBlue.

But I hear DOS and remember the billions of crashes, reboots, freezes.
Many layers in NT technology are for making a fault tolerant OS, is not so bad. Win9x technology for me is a DOS extension. So the same sh*t.

But I agree that MS is in the wrong direction. I also hate bloatware. I don't like framework, new DirectX crap of many DLL's versions for D3D.

1 Gb OS is crap.

But in the long run your aproach will cost more than buy new hardware Very Happy

Wise decisions buying hardware/software is some kind of art mixed with a litle of good lock Very Happy

Just for example a 486 without power savings will cost more than a P3 just for electricity bills. I'll prefer to enjoy playing KingQuest 7 than paying extramoney to Enron or whatever comany name is.
Post 23 Feb 2007, 01:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
DOS and remember the billions of crashes, reboots, freezes.


You CAN have them if you want. With XP you can't - the booting and
re-storing/-install times are too long Laughing

Quote:
Just for example a 486 without power savings will cost more than a P3 just for electricity bills.


If you don't use them and the power stuff works on your P3 Rolling Eyes

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 23 Feb 2007, 02:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
vid wrote:
thanks...
for sure it's now outdated... it starts with DOS stuff.

I was right at a time that starting with DOS is better for assembly, but now i think that it's not good to push people back to DOS.


I started with windows programming, I never learnt any DOS assembly Razz. I know the basic idea of how to do DOS assembly, but practically, I've never needed to program for DOS.
I started learning assembly language using the ThunderVB addin for VB6 Very Happy, allowing inline asm Razz. Then I moved onto FASM Laughing
If I remember correctly I started programming in asm at the beginning of 2005.

_________________
Raedwulf
Post 23 Feb 2007, 10:12
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.