Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:29:13 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: theowl AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu
Message-Id: <8011-Fri04May2001102913+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
In-reply-to: <3AF1D04F.23054.180FCC1@localhost> (theowl@freemail.c3.hu)
Subject: Re: win2000/ntvdm/djgpp (fwd)
References: <3AEDD6A5 DOT 5176 DOT 4B76959 AT localhost> (theowl AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu) <3AF1D04F DOT 23054 DOT 180FCC1 AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "The Owl" <theowl AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu>
> Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 21:40:31 +0200
> 
> DOS Version: 05.00h
> True DOS Version: 532h
> Windows Version: 00.16h

The last one puzzles me: is the major Windows version indeed zero?
What happens if you modify the last printf like so:

  printf ("Windows Version: %X.%.2Xh\n", r.h.al, r.h.ah);

Can someone see what Windows version does that program print on NT4?

> this is on w2k/sp1 us-english. something you may be interested in
> is that i also have the following files in my winnt/system32 dir:
> 
>   NTDOS.SYS
>   ntdos404.sys
>   ntdos411.sys
>   ntdos412.sys
>   ntdos804.sys
> 
> i'm not sure how i can get them to execute (load into a ntvdm process)

Try putting something in config.nt or autoexec.nt?  Maybe search the
MS Knowledge Base for these names?

> but their mere existence suggests that one could get different DOS
> versions... could not tell you which of the above would be affected

I hope that the "True DOS Version" should remain unchanged.  If it
does change, we are in trouble.

> perhaps you could try to getenv("OS") which under NT returns "Window_NT".

This is dangerous: someone could modify the OS variable with a simple
shell command.

> also, for the int 21/51 (getPSP) method i think there is no need for such
> detection, that code can be safely executed under any DPMI server.

Yes, I was planning to use these for 21/50.