On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:17:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
> Maybe 3? I don't remember.

All I can recall of LabWindows is that it was a poor attempt to recreate
the Macintosh-only LabView on Microsoft-compatible PCs.

Remember the Mac II and successors had NuBus for their expansion bus at
the time, which offered higher performance for connecting instrumentation
than anything available in the Microsoft-compatible world, until PCI came
along.

On 26/09/2024 20:17, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-25 23:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
>>
>> Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?
>
> They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
> application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
> Maybe 3? I don't remember.
>
> I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking), then
> offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
>
> I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there was
> one in version 2.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
>
> I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.
>

Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had, if
all it was running was your own code talking straight to the Bios or the
hardware.

--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 02:13:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
> was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had ...

The problem was the convoluted x86 addressing architecture. And what
happened when you had more than 640 KiB of memory.

On 2024-09-26 23:02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:17:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
>> Maybe 3? I don't remember.
>
> All I can recall of LabWindows is that it was a poor attempt to recreate
> the Macintosh-only LabView on Microsoft-compatible PCs.

Labview was available on Dos/Win. We used it, too.

> Remember the Mac II and successors had NuBus for their expansion bus at
> the time, which offered higher performance for connecting instrumentation
> than anything available in the Microsoft-compatible world, until PCI came
> along.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-09-27 03:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/09/2024 20:17, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-09-25 23:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
>>>
>>> Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?
>>
>> They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
>> application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
>> Maybe 3? I don't remember.
>>
>> I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking),
>> then offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
>>
>> I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there
>> was one in version 2.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
>>
>> I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.
>>
>
> Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
> was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had, if
> all it was running was your own code talking straight to the Bios or the
> hardware.

All the memory was 640 KB, even if the machine had 8 meg.

--
Cheers, Carlos.