Author Topic: PBCC & PB DOS 2.1 compatibility question?  (Read 3031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brice Manuel

  • Guest
PBCC & PB DOS 2.1 compatibility question?
« on: June 04, 2010, 01:08:41 PM »
How compatible is the current PBCC with code from the old DOS 2.1 version of PB?  I am trying to convert several old PB made DOS shareware games over to PB Win, of course the code is easy to follow, but over the years I have forgot exactly what things looked like when the drawing was done.  I want to keep the original look as much as possible.  I haven't been able to install 2.1 for many years (no floppy drives) so I can't compile my source files.

I guess my question would be if I found a trusted PBCC user who I could send my source to, would they be able to compile it and run it and take screenshots for me, or would the source need too much modification to make this feasible?


On another note, some of you old-time users may remember these sports-sim games, as heavily modified versions were used as examples in the series of PB tutorials I wrote for the PB section of my old BBS.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 03:42:43 PM by Brice Manuel »

Offline Peter Weis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
  • User-Rate: +15/-4
Re: PBCC & PB DOS 2.1 compatibility question?
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2010, 01:58:25 PM »
Hi Manuel,
It's all right with PBC DOS programs to Windows porting.
Exceptions are!
Inline assembly language and graphics and access to memory locations

I portiere at the moment the Power TOOLS II by Dirk Hilger written in assembler. This I Can Leave the tools from scratch.
This starts already with the direct access to the screen memory is not in Windows!
Windows provides for these tasks console functions for disposal.
The next input and mouse functions. There is simply no interrupt on Windows for the programmer.
And here's a screen of my Power Tools 32-bit Windows

Regrads,
Peter

Brice Manuel

  • Guest
Re: PBCC & PB DOS 2.1 compatibility question?
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2010, 09:50:47 PM »
Thank you, Peter.  Very helpful info :)