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.