Win32 Assembler

[zeitghost]

One of my mates has just been landed with teaching this...

My advice was to run away very fast indeed.

What is the opinion of the esteemed congregation on this?

[TheMonkey]

Vomit. Segments for example. I haven't touched it since the good old 80486 though so it's probably better now.

They should teach ARM. Very powerful and a lot more sensible.

[VectraMan]

Vomit. Segments for example. I haven't touched it since the good old 80486 though so it's probably better now.

Obviously not. No need to worry about segments in 32 bit (well, perhaps if you need more than 4GB ...).

First task might be to use the right name. What's Win32 assembler? Win32 is an API.

[AtW]

No more bloody segments ever since proteced mode in 386!

It ought to be good money (very niche these days), otherwise run away - it is not exactly the kind of subject to teach people who know high level languages, best to start low and go high than otherwise.

[DaveB]

One of my mates has just been landed with teaching this...

My advice was to run away very fast indeed.

What is the opinion of the esteemed congregation on this?

Shouldn't that be X86 Assembler? Or am I horribly out of date?

[ASB]

No more bloody segments ever since proteced mode in 386!

It ought to be good money (very niche these days), otherwise run away - it is not exactly the kind of subject to teach people who know high level languages, best to start low and go high than otherwise.

OS2 subsystem 20 bit adressing via segments thunk through to W32 API. Ah, deep joy.

Now my clients insist on XP they are demanding a 32 bit build. Only taken them 9 years

[AtW]

OS2 subsystem 20 bit adressing via segments thunk through to W32 API. Ah, deep joy.

It is most certainly Win32s - not true Win32 that (AFAIK) was not even present in Windows 95, the 's one was for Win 3.1 I think. All ancient history, I used OS/2 for a while - it was nice to see that I could format floppy disk while doing other stuff, but I am not suprised that it failed.

[ASB]

It is most certainly Win32s - not true Win32 that (AFAIK) was not even present in Windows 95, the 's one was for Win 3.1 I think. All ancient history, I used OS/2 for a while - it was nice to see that I could format floppy disk while doing other stuff, but I am not suprised that it failed.

Console OS2 exes run in the OS2 subsystem on NT W2K and support was not dropped until XP. For the truly insane there was a PM emulator. The subsystem maps the OS2 APIs to W32. You can call W32 api directly via thunking, there are a number of ways of achieving this if you really need to. W95 and earlier would run (for want of a better word) dual mode EXEs

[AtW]

Maybe they added it later - the last OS/2 I tried was v2.0 I think, this was around the time when everyone used Win 3.1 while I preferred DOS, still use Norton Commander now.

[ASB]

Maybe they added it later - the last OS/2 I tried was v2.0 I think, this was around the time when everyone used Win 3.1 while I preferred DOS, still use Norton Commander now.

Either you're being particularly dense or I'm being more obtuse than normal. I wouldn't rule out either.

OS2 [ie real pukka OS2 on the box] had a windows subsystem. Thus it could run windows 3.1 apps (after a fashion). It was probably this that was the last nail in the coffin. This certainly never provided the Win32s api. Straight 16 bit.

Now, NT thru W2k run OS2 console applications. That is what I was referring to. Now, last time I wrote any x86 assembler it used seg/offset 20 bit adressing. I was just using this to counter your assertion that there is no such thing any more (in truth of course there isn't since when windows runs an os2 process hosted in os2.exe it maps it to a flat 32 bit model). But I still have some OS2 assembler written yonks ago running on W2k via said host process.

Of course this is now way