Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:33:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.16.19800124122743.2f273944@tellus.swip.net> X-Sender: mt58779 AT tellus DOT swip DOT net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 Demo (16) To: opendos AT delorie DOT com From: Bernie Subject: Re: Using Loader with DRDOS and WIN95 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Bob Moss wrote: >The last I heard (and my experience with MS/PC/and especially DRDOS) >DOS will not even see WIN95 on the computer and will cause serious >problems, >the least of which is to lock-up the computer...see my comments below.. IMO DOS shouldn't care what other programs are on the computer. ("modularity") > Sorry to say that there are only two 'MSDOS' files on a WIN95 computer. >They are msdos.sys and io.sys and they are used to boot the computer and pass >over the control of the computer to the WIN32 Application Programming Interface >(API). IMHO those two are all that is needed for DOS (+ command.com or something like it of course). In Win9x the computer boots DOS (with 32bit API) and executes win.com ot it boots DOS (with 16bit API - which makes it much better since no bugs are in the kernel (no need for a AMDK6-2 bugfix - and this *is* the only way to install the bugfix) and don't run win.com >This MSDOS 7 is a DOS Emulator sysytem built up of 32bit API versions >of the old DOS files. These files can be found in \Windows\Command and are not >DOS. Neither is the old xcopy.exe file... These are system utilities. MS-DOS 7.x is a valid DOS. >You can download the old DOS files from the MS download site but they >don't work well in a DOS window because they are not written to comply with >32bit API. Really? I had no idea that it was free, perhaps you can point it out to us? >Thats why DRDOS has problems, and will continue to do so, until it is >written to be compatible with the 32bit API's and FAT32 and has long file name >recognition in Command.Com the way 4DOS does. They have a version made for WIN95 but >I have not tried it yet.. I really don't see what 32bit APIs, FAT32 and VFAT has to do with this... We are on another level here entirely. LFN aren't needed, just as 32bit APIs. FAT32 is just a new FAT version... >I have only seen that on some HP or Compaq systems where they run a >propritary version of a pc-compatible. I tried it with mine and Had all sorts of >trouble. MS designed the FAT32 so that one large hard disk could store everything >without loosing large amounts of hard disk space like we do with DOS and >WIN31/311 systems and large drive/large partitions. On a FAT32 system clusters are >only 8k up to 8GB versus 64k on a 2048-4096MB FAT16 system, and most of the >post 1995 BIOS let you use up to 5GB hard drives and all the extraspace is >available for use with the large files used in windows environment . FAT16 has a limit at 2GB. Actually I've never understood what the problem with the cluster size is, by keeping things on seperate drives you will have it much better sorted. (For instance games only on g, h and i and applications on the others). FWIW I've got 8.4GB (divided into ca 500MB partitions) for DOS (only OS, and only Windows version is 3.11 fwg) on this computer (AMD K6-2 400 with 64MB RAM). > Now, almost >all the Windows applications are setup to go on drive c: , although they do let >you choose expert install and put the program anywhere you choose and even >use a different folder name (this can really confuse the issue, especially if >you take your computer to a shop to be worked on). How can it confuse anything? >Half of the stuff would not un-install properly and I had to hand massage the >registry. Nothing new with that, it's a well known fact that the only way to uninstall program x is to delete everything on the partition and reinstall everything except program x. >I have just finished spending two weeks getting enough of the garbage out of the >Registry so I can begin re-installing everthing without getting calls for the loading >of files that are not on the computer anymore, or not on drive c: because I put the >programs on another drive. At least I have Partition Magic to change the size of my >drives so I can have one large C: drive. You should have installed the programs on D: E: or whatever you want, you can't expect it to work after you move them. >all I see here is the same thing they had in Win31/311. The computer is >directed to >the Windows directory and told to boot in multiuser and GUI mode. I've never seen Win 3.x do something like that. >WIN98 is completely DOS free and BILL GATES brags about that all the >time. Excuse me?! Windows 98 is a package of the following: * MS-DOS 7.x * Windows 4.x * Internet Explorer x.x (I have no idea, all I know is that it's really really slowing down the computer since it's always running). Only diffrence with Windows 95 is that there are a few bug fixes, new useless features (a few are good but most are useless) and more bugs. (And not all Win95 games can be used in Win98). Windows NT 5 (aka Windows 2000) is a diffrent matter entirely, but who whould want to use an OS that uses 128MB just to start a simple text editor (notepad). >DOS programs must be handled very carefully to run on these systems as >the DOS programmers normally setup the programs to take over the entire >computer and when they do they over-write windows code and crash the system. Sorry, I have no idea how that works, just set up Windows 9x to show a bootup menu and choose "Normal MS-DOS" for these programs. (Ok, I don't actually have Windows 9x but that's how people have set it up so it will work). >WIN95/98 attempts to load DOS programs in a virtual computer mode where >they are not aware of windows and operate in their own space, but that >frequently not enough and most WIN95/98 users do not attempt to use DOS (dinosaur) >stuff because they are tired of rebuilding the computer and also there >are lots of wimpy windows applications/games which use the installed windows librarys >to run without crashing. Most Win9x users thinks that computers didn't exist until Windows95 came (except at big offices). Very few are aware of any alternative. Besides if they were "tired of rebuilding the computer" then they wouldn't be running Windows 9x anyway. Most people don't try to fix the problems they have in Windows 9x since it's way to complicated. >Maybe you can see I don't really like Windoze. But I have to use it at >work and all my children and grandchildren need it for school work, so I have >it. I understand that you disslike Windows (so do I) but the reasons you wrote aren't valid. I disslike it since it's: * (more or less) impossible to install hardware into it * slows down your computer so much * hangs without any reason * way to big (or "demanding on the hardware") * (more or less) requiering a mouse to operate - and a new mice doesn't even work for many weeks with little use, I would hate to be using it all the time There are probably more reasons which I have forgotten (or that other people see as reasons). //Bernie http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...