04-17-2005, 12:10 PM
i'm not going to bash anyone in a "newbie" forum, even if i'm the "newbie"... (here, anyway.) all the same, i have a post / mini rant that's *not* directed at anyone here.
there *are* examples in the dos GFX folder but they don't use the BASIC-flavored commands that are available in the gfx2lib... the one that supports commands most like basic. maybe they are all 320x200x256, but they sure look more high res.
however they work (i can't figure out how they do graphics, all i know is they compiled and work under dos with cws???? - the thing that lets you run 32 bit dos stuff. pcm- pd... qp... whatever. the graphics examples work, but dunno how.
i appreciate the answers, tho they may be more accurate than my own thoughts, these remain my thoughts:
* linux (at least) is "better" than dos, but that of course is not the issue
* i can't believe they made a free / powerful version of something (gpl no less) From Dos and didn't bother making the primary graphics commands available in the dos version. tf is that all about?
* i'm not up on vesa compatibility, all i know is that i'm sure as many people still use dos can still find a card that's compatible, too. arachne web browser for dos works Just Fine in vesa 1024x768xEtc (more than 256) and i havent heard about compatibility issues from anyone... not to say they don't exist of course
* even *if* you can't access vesa reliably anymore there's no reason to not make a gpl'd version of a dos program (qbasic, yes, i know microsoft didn't invent basic for the ibm/dos... etc but even if they suck qb was a *good* implementation) with graphics commands (no PSET???? geez.) for whatever standard res (screen 13 and Twelve would be Plenty, standard vga!) they could port the library for. if i ever got djgcc to work, (i know it's a good compiler) or if i was any good with c i'd do it myself. i wish someone would.
none of this is the fault of anyone here, just a little rant, but it strikes me as so silly. i mean, it's BASIC. you'd think they'd let you do graphics (no pset?) in dos, without whatever goofy scheme i'm going to have to come up with basic on the (anything but basic) grahpics examples included, which don't have pset, or circle, or line, or any other basic graphics commands. and it's just, no excuses, just dumb. why Half-port to the os it came from? (see above re: where basic didn't actually come from.)
i'll get off my soapbox now. promise.
*sigh*
there *are* examples in the dos GFX folder but they don't use the BASIC-flavored commands that are available in the gfx2lib... the one that supports commands most like basic. maybe they are all 320x200x256, but they sure look more high res.
however they work (i can't figure out how they do graphics, all i know is they compiled and work under dos with cws???? - the thing that lets you run 32 bit dos stuff. pcm- pd... qp... whatever. the graphics examples work, but dunno how.
i appreciate the answers, tho they may be more accurate than my own thoughts, these remain my thoughts:
* linux (at least) is "better" than dos, but that of course is not the issue
* i can't believe they made a free / powerful version of something (gpl no less) From Dos and didn't bother making the primary graphics commands available in the dos version. tf is that all about?
* i'm not up on vesa compatibility, all i know is that i'm sure as many people still use dos can still find a card that's compatible, too. arachne web browser for dos works Just Fine in vesa 1024x768xEtc (more than 256) and i havent heard about compatibility issues from anyone... not to say they don't exist of course
* even *if* you can't access vesa reliably anymore there's no reason to not make a gpl'd version of a dos program (qbasic, yes, i know microsoft didn't invent basic for the ibm/dos... etc but even if they suck qb was a *good* implementation) with graphics commands (no PSET???? geez.) for whatever standard res (screen 13 and Twelve would be Plenty, standard vga!) they could port the library for. if i ever got djgcc to work, (i know it's a good compiler) or if i was any good with c i'd do it myself. i wish someone would.
none of this is the fault of anyone here, just a little rant, but it strikes me as so silly. i mean, it's BASIC. you'd think they'd let you do graphics (no pset?) in dos, without whatever goofy scheme i'm going to have to come up with basic on the (anything but basic) grahpics examples included, which don't have pset, or circle, or line, or any other basic graphics commands. and it's just, no excuses, just dumb. why Half-port to the os it came from? (see above re: where basic didn't actually come from.)
i'll get off my soapbox now. promise.
*sigh*