Tree @master (Download .tar.gz)
- 20th-Century Visual Artists of Note.md
- A Basic Theory of Video Games.md
- A Note on Items of Note.md
- An Esolang Reading List.md
- Apple II Games of Note.md
- Atari 2600 Games of Note.md
- Befunge Silver Jubilee Retrospective.md
- Blurry Memories of DOS Programming.md
- Classic Computer Games.md
- Classic Text Adventures.md
- Commodore 64 Games of Note.md
- Computer Games of Note.md
- Computer Sports Games of Note.md
- Licensed-Character Video Games of Note.md
- Lost Games.md
- Perspective on Text Adventures.md
- Programming Languages as an Artistic Medium.md
- Recollected Games.md
- Retrospective on Language Design.md
- Role-Playing Games of Note.md
- Some Modern Retrogames.md
- Some Notes on Drawing.md
- Some Notes on Proving Programs Correct.md
- Some Production Programming Languages.md
- Text Adventures of Note.md
- The Aesthetics of Esolangs.md
- Video Games of Note.md
Blurry Memories of DOS Programming.md @master — view markup · raw · history · blame
Blurry Memories of DOS Programming
- publication-date: May 2017
So, for whatever reason, you want to program something in DOS — that is to say, MS-DOS or one of its clones. I totally support this sort of endeavour! It is a totally worthwhile thing to try your hand at. It can give you a sense of historical perspective, or simply be a change from the everyday.
And it might even be a reasonable (in some sense) platform for building and distributing certain kinds of software, like games, since you have lots of options for emulating DOS on modern devices: DOSBox, or FreeDOS under QEMU, or v86, to name just three.
Now, I don't have tons of experience programming for DOS — mainly writing a few weird programming languages. I also tried writing a few games (all such attempts abandoned, alas).
But I do recall, pretty clearly, that there are several parts of DOS programming that can be a real PITA.
So this document attempts to collate my blurry memories of my scant experience programming things in DOS, to shed light on those parts.
You don't need to know x86 machine code, but because DOS isn't much of an operating system, it helps to be comfortable with thinking about low-level behaviour of the machine.
Since you're almost certainly going to be running the resulting program in an emulator, you could even consider writing in BASIC. You can crank the emulator up to an unreasonable speed on a modern machine to compensate for any performance problems that come from BASIC being an interpreted language.
Or if you're doing this for laughs, you could write your code in ILLGOL.
OK, so when you write a program in DOS, you actually have a choice: you can use DOS for what you want to do, or you can totally bypass DOS and use the underlying BIOS instead.
(This is what I was getting at when I said "DOS isn't much of an operating system", above.)
If you go straight to the BIOS, DOS won't try to stop you; at worst, you might leave DOS a little confused about the state of things. You will lose the advantages that DOS gives you, like being able to redirect output to a file, talking to hardware in a more abstract way via a driver, etc. But those advantages aren't terribly great, especially for games, and especially in the modern era, where your code will almost certainly be running on an emulator instead of on a real machine where you need to worry about things like what kind of soundcard the user has.
And if you only use the BIOS and never DOS itself, your program can run without DOS. That's right, you can just put your program on a boot disk and boot right into it and not worry about DOS at all. Some actual "DOS" games did this.
But if you want to do things like load and save files, then using DOS will be much easier than e.g. writing your own filesystem routines. And if you're using a language other than assembler, your compiler might insert code which uses DOS anyway, and it might be more painful to work around that than to just live with it.
In either case, under the hood, everything you do with the system will be done by invoking an interrupt. This is, if you ask me, backwards. A program should respond to interrupts, not cause them. But this is how they built this architecture, so who am I to complain. I think of them as system calls.
int 21h is a "system call" to DOS. The "system calls"
to the BIOS include
int 10h and
int 16h, but there are also other
numbers. (The trailing
h is x86 assembly language convention for
"hexadecimal", although you may be more used to a preceding
If you want to get serious about this, consult a document called Ralf Brown's Interrupt List. It lists probably every interrupt you will ever care about, and describes each of them briefly (although not always in much detail).
Interrupts are something that, if you are programming in assembler, you will need to know, but if you're using some higher-level programming language, chances are there will be standard or 3rd-party libraries that will wrap calling these interrupts.
One such library is the conio.h library which came with Borland C++,
and which has been cloned several times, which exposes functions like
Another such 3rd party library is Allegro, which, until version 4.2, supported DOS.
For addressing memory, the 80286 and earlier models support only a mode called "real mode", which is this terrible thing where 32 bits are used to address a byte location in memory, but it's actually a pair of 16-bit numbers call the "segment" and the "offset", but all but the topmost 4 bits of the segment overlap bits in the offset, so it's really only 20 bits of address space.
There is a reason for this, and I bet it dates back to CP/M days, and I bet it's that this allows you to relocate a program in memory in a fine-grained(ish) way simply by changing the segment (but leaving the offsets, hardcoded in the program, the same).
But it's just horrible for normal use, and leads to things like
the Borland languages supporting
far pointers to
memory which you can't interchange without various machinations.
If you must stay in "real mode" my recommendation would be to stick
with the "tiny" memory model, where the data and code segment are
the same and they never change and your program is a
and you have the extra fun of trying to fit everything you need
into 64K. If you must have more, you can upgrade to the "small"
model where the segments still don't change, but now they are
disjoint, so you have 64K for your code and 64K for your data.
But that's as far as it should go. Once you get into the "large" and "huge" models, you will lose hope, and instead you should look into getting out of "real mode".
The sanest alternative to "real mode" is "protected mode", which gives you a nice and simple flat 32-bit address space, at the small price of having to run on a 80386 or later, and having to start something called a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) driver first. DJGPP targets this mode and comes with a DPMI driver called CWSDPMI.
But the sanest alternative isn't necessarily the most entertaining. There is also something called "unreal mode" that I've wanted to try for a long time, which is sort of a "glitch" mode in between "real" and "protected" modes.
There are also EMS and XMS memory, but those are possibly best left to the imagination at this point. (I tried working with them once, in BefOS, but I gave up, because IIRC you need to page data into and out of them, and for that you need a paging system, and memory management systems are often a bit subtle, by which I mean annoying, to design and implement.)
Then there's the A20 Line. We don't talk about the A20 Line.
By the way, 20 bits of address space is 1024K, which was split up into 640K of main memory plus 384K for ROM and I/O (BIOS and video memory, basically). The 640K there is the same 640K that was made famous by the phrase "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Text and Graphics
At this point in history you can safely assume the machine has VGA — i.e. that the emulator knows how to support it. You don't have to fiddle with CGA and EGA unless you really, really want to.
VGA provides various modes, both text and graphic.
The "standard" text mode is probably 80-column-by-25-row 16-colour text. 16 colours doesn't always mean 16 colours; sometimes the "brightness" bit is interpreted to mean "blinking" instead. There's a Wikipedia article about it: VGA-compatible text mode.
This is the mode that the computer generally already is in,
but to switch to it (from e.g. a graphics mode),
AL=03h and call
If you want to output text via DOS, the controls codes will cause things to happen, but if you write directly to the screen memory, you get the entire IBM OEM font, including the happy faces and whatnot.
The screen memory for this mode starts at
B8000h (the uppermost-
leftmost character) and extends 80 * 25 = 2000 bytes beyond that.
It's probably easiest to set the extended segment pointer
B800h and address individual bytes with
There are two bytes for every character; the high byte is the attribute byte, which contains the foreground and background colours, and the low byte is the character code, which matches ASCII but of course goes beyond just ASCII.
There are other text configurations, like black-and-white, 40 (or 132?) columns, 50 rows... but these are left as exercises for the interested reader.
The simplest graphic mode by far is 320x200x256 because the video RAM is just a 2D array of bytes and every pixel is one byte.
To switch into this mode, set
AL=13h and call
Screen memory starts at
A0000h (the uppermost-leftmost pixel)
and extends 320 * 200 = 64000 bytes beyond that. It's probably
easiest to set the extended segment pointer
address individual bytes with
There is also the fact that if you want smooth animation, you should wait for the vertical retrace period (a.k.a. the vertical blanking interval) before making changes to screen memory, as discussed in A Basic Theory of Video Games.
I don't actually remember how to do this on an IBM PC, if I ever knew,
but I do remember that Allegro has a function for it called
vsync(). If this function was all you wanted from Allegro, you
would still be justified in using it, IMO.
If you're writing a game, you could take the player's input from a joystick. But traditionally, PC games would assume that you might not own a joystick and would let you use the keyboard for control instead.
DOS will let you read text from "standard input", even when that input is coming from a console, but that will be line-buffered, i.e. the user will need to press Enter before the program sees any of it, which is fine for text adventures and the like, but not really sufficient for video games.
I don't think DOS has a way to check if input is available and only consume it if it is available, but I might be misremembering.
But the BIOS certainly can do this.
To wait for a key to be pressed, set
To check if a key is pressed or not, set
then check the
Z flag afterward. For both calls,
the ASCII value will be available in
AL afterward, and
the raw scan code will be available in
Here is a really comprehensive list of keyboard scancodes.
If you also want to see if any of the modifier keys (Shift,
Ctrl, etc,) are being pressed, set
I'd describe the result but this is getting outside the scope
of this article; consult Ralf Brown's Interrupt List, or
simply do a web search for
int 16h, for more information.
I never played much with sound on the IBM PC architecture. It's
probably reasonable to assume that any given emulator supports at
least the SoundBlaster 16. It's probably even OK to assume that
the SB16 lives at a certain interrupt and DMA address, since those
can be configured on the emulator's side now (instead of asking you
with one of those horrible
But I don't actually know anything about talking to an SB16. But I would be really surprised if there wasn't information about it somewhere on the internet.
Failing the SB16, you could, if your really wanted to, drive the internal speaker, and the emulator, if it is worth its salt, should support that. However, I'm not sure there are many listeners who would appreciate it greatly. In fact, many would probably appreciate if you didn't make the internal speaker make any sounds...