Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers

And Betamax was better than VHS. Windows 3 was worth buying just to run DOS programs 'better', at the time OS/2 was worse at running DOS programs than DOS. That's when the battle was lost.

Yep.

And there the similarity ends. Even that's overstating the case; whether RAM and ROM share the same address space makes quite a difference.

Far from true. The term "microcontroller" covers everything from a 32-bit ARM/MIPS/AVR32 RISC chip down to a PIC10. Programming the former is closer to programming a PC than to programming a PIC10.

It's not even as if PICs are all the same; "PIC" just means "one of Microchip's 5 substantially different architectures".

It's not even as if the 8-bit PICs are all the same; there's a lot of difference between the the low-end (banked, 2-level stack, no interrupts, unable to read program memory), mid-range (8-level stack, has interrupts, able to read program memory) and high-end (access bank, flat indirect addressing, 31-level stack, byte-addressed program memory, multiple FSR/INDF sets, high/low priority interrupts, separate PORTx/LATx registers, built-in multiply, ...).

If you think that using C makes the low-level details irrelevant, expect to end up with code which is 3x larger and 3x slower than if it had been written with the details in mind.

You're sure showing your (lack of) debugging skills. If the bug can't be found single stepping, you simply halt *after* (or on) the failure, then track backwards to it.

IBM paid a *ton* of software developers to port their wares to OS/2. They took the money and didn't come across.

I used 1.0, 1.1, 1.3 (skipped M$' 1.2), and 2.0. All but 1.0 were far better DOS than DOS. V1.3 was particularly good, but still only allowed one DOS box.

Yep, until M$ started crippling WinOS2.

That's not 100% true. IBM, and all other box makers, had to buy a Win license for every box built ("simplified accounting") to get the best OEM price. OS/2 was then an additional cost. M$ wasn't *that* stupid.

False analogy. Betamax was *not* better than VHS, where it counted.

Absolute nonsense. Even OS/2 V1.1 was a better DOS than DOS.

You've *got* to be kidding! I've never seen two interrupt controllers that work the same way. It takes some time to even get GPIO bits sorted out. Timer/counters? You _must_ be a C hack.

$5K is only a week or two.

That may well be, but totally irrelevant to anything I've said.

Look at the requotes above, and reconcile "about to go bust" with "financially good enough to buy its competition".

PS/2

and

Goodness, so many claims. Does any of you have any backup?

Try a remedial reading class. This time, stay awake.

That still needs something to trigger when the failure occurs. If you do that manually you'll be too late to get a proper stack trace.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

So interrupt controller A makes eggs and interrupt controller B makes bacon? Come on, put the bits in the right place and every interrupt controller gets you an interrupt.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

If you program an ARM like a PC then you'll run into trouble with the amount of memory. I did manage to get an SSL stack intended for a PC environment to run on an ARM controller but not without writing a managed malloc implementation first.

IOW PIC Is Crap (at least the 8 bit ones). One of the very few architectures that doesn't port C very well. A current project I'm working on involves a PIC16 and an ARM. Because of the crappy PIC16 architecture I have two different implementations of the same code for a communication protocol.

I never said C makes the low level details irrelevant. Don't put words into my 'mouth'! I don't think I even mentioned C before.

Anyway, IMHO getting a microcontroller going is a matter of figuring out how to program the damn thing (get your code in the flash), getting the toolchain setup, getting a port-pin to toggle from software. From this point you know the hardware is working at a basic level. From there you can start to setup the rest of the peripherals you need. I like to keep a positive perspective knowing that it is a process that can be applied to any microcontroller because they basically all do the same. Why should that be difficult? Or am I working with too many platforms?

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

Actually Windows 1.0 was designed for the 8086. Some remnants of that legacy you can still find in the API today. For example the GlobalLock()/GlobalUnlock() functions were originally to have a sort of virtual memory on a processor that didn't have the features to support virtual memory transparently to the application programs.

Windows was most certainly dominant, but it was not yet a given that it had "won". Warp could do everything that current windows could do, and do it much better. It could do everything Win95 could do even though it was out a year before Win95 came out. And it was easier to use, and nicer to look at, as well as having more functionality, and being more secure (DOS and Windows viruses came on disks rather than email in those days, but were still prevalent).

There were some limitations on hardware compatibility and drivers, but these were fairly small and of little effect in the target group (business users). OS/2 did have greater memory requirements to run smoothly - preferably 16 MB, which was a lot at the time (NT 3.51 was similar).

The key was software compatibility. As I said, OS/2 was much better for running Win16 and DOS programs than any other system. It could not run Win32 software (the NT 3.51 api), because MS wouldn't give out the details. But MS and IBM had agreements on the Win32s API (32-bit data and flat memory addresses, but missing things like multi-threading) which was becoming popular for larger programs on Win3.1. Win32s programs ran fine on NT 3.51, at least as well on OS/2, and acceptably on Win3.1 (if you didn't need to do anything else at the same time).

There were hopes and plans from both MS and IBM (and others, including

*nix vendors) that the software industry would solidify around a few standardised APIs (Win32 and posix in particular) so that any modern operating system would have an implementation or translation layer for all these APIs and be able to software written for any API. That way people could pick the OS based on things like hardware support, easy of use, and OS-level features without having to worry about software compatibility. Applications might look a little out-of-place if they were not native, but they would run. As an example, NT has limited posix support, and can also run OS/2 16-bit command line binaries (I don't know if that support still exists in NT's descendants).

When MS saw that OS/2 was actually gaining noticeable market share (even though almost no one sold pre-installed machines), they changed tactics and killed it off. I believe their insistence that manufacturers (IBM included) paid for Windows licenses for each machine made, regardless of whether or not Windows was installed, was later condemned in court - long after the damage was done to consumers, suppliers, and the industry. PC manufacturers had to choose between selling only Windows machines, or selling no windows machines - guess which they choose? Major software developers were put under similar pressure.

Then there were tricks with software compatibility. I can't remember off-hand what version of Win32s OS/2 supported, but shortly after it was released, MS made a new version - the only difference was that the initialisation routine checked for OS/2 and gave a error message about requiring a newer version of Win32s. Thus any new software built with the latest Win32s would not run on OS/2.

Of course, MS didn't have to work /too/ hard to cripple OS/2. IBM's PHBs were doing a fine job themselves in various ways, and MS's marketing people could easily make the Win95 vapourware sound far more attractive than Warp.

In a sense you are right that windows had already won - history has shown repeatedly that those who partner with MS or trust in their promises and commitments will lose out sooner or later.

I didn't use OS/2 until Warp 3.0, and it allowed multiple DOS boxes. A particularly nice feature was that programs could get something like

720K conventional memory - much higher than with "real" DOS.

All manufacturers had to use "simplified accounting" (or pay a huge extra cost), which meant that if they wanted to ship windows on more than a few machines, they had to buy windows for all their machines. This was enough to stop OS/2 being shipped by non-IBM manufacturers because, as you say, it was an additional cost. But for IBM the cost of installing OS/2 would have been minimal since it was their system - there were extra clauses in the MS license deal with IBM to specifically exclude OS/2 pre-installs beyond the usual "simplified accounting". I don't remember the details at all, but I believe IBM got an even greater windows discount for installing windows on 100% of their machines - MS practically gave away windows licenses to IBM to avoid any competition.

Well they way I see it is you can do it the hard way or the easy way. I like the easy way. Means I can get something to market quickly, and more time for me or more time to develop new stuff for my customer. Yup, I can do the command line stuff, but if they take care of it for me its one less thing i need to do and the happier I am. Bring it on I say.

Popular is not all bad. Popular means they can throw more money at it and make it easier. Always a good thing. If you use the argument that idiots can do it, well true, but idiots cant make a good product and will always fail.