To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:04:36 -0500 Subject: Fw: Re: Using Loader with DRDOS and WIN95 Message-ID: <20000124.170442.-1035153.9.editor@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-435 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: Bruce Morgen Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:33:21 +0100 (MET) Bernie writes: > 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). That API exists only after the GUI is loaded and running. > > IMHO those two are all that is needed for DOS (+ command.com or > something like it of course). Actually, only IO.SYS and a shell like COMMAND.COM are needed -- from DOS 7 on, MSDOS.SYS is a text file used by the GUI loader started by WIN.COM. In pre-Win9x version of DOS, MSDOS.SYS contains the actual DOS (Disk Operating System) code and IO.SYS contains the generic part of the BIOS (Basic Input Output System), the hardware- specific portion is provided by the motherboard's "ROM BIOS" chip. > > In Win9x the computer boots DOS Yes! > (with 32bit API) and No -- this API doesn't exist until the GUI is running! > 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 Right, in this scenario you are running only DOS 7 and there is no 32-bit API yet -- you get that only when you run MS-DOS Prompt or a DOS app from the GUI, e.g. the Start Menu "Run" box. One can confirm the absence of the 32-bit API by the fact that no long filenames are visible unless the GUI is running! > > >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. > Wrong. These are DOS 7 files and can't run without a running GUI if you can do without long filename support. > Neither is the old xcopy.exe file... These are system utilities. > MS-DOS 7.x is a valid DOS. Correct, although there is an XCOPY enhancement called XCOPY32.EXE that comes into play when the GUI's 32-bit API is available. > > >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. This is nonsense. Virtually any DOS executable will run under raw, pre-GUI DOS 7 as long as you make use of the SETVER.EXE device driver. > > 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... You are essentially correct. Under raw, pre-GUI DOS 7, the 32-bit API issue is moot since that doesn't exist unless the GUI is loaded and running. As previously noted, long filenames are not visible in this scenario -- the long filename support in COMMAND.COM and the newer versions of 4DOS is idle in the absence of the 32-bit API. > > >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). That is an intelligent solution that I retained when I added Win95 to Win3.11 to my system via System Commander. If I had gone the FAT32 route I would have lost backward compatibility for data access via Win3.11 and DOS 6.20. > > > 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). That's only because today's generation of so-called PC technicians tend to be incompetent (largely because they're so underpaid) kids who get confused by anything beyond a typical factory Windoze setup. Phooey, I do my own hardware work anyway! > > How can it confuse anything? To an incompetent, pretty nearly anything is confusing! > > >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. ...either that or put up with miscellaneous detritus files that the uninstaller couldn't locate and/or delete. It's a good thing hard disk space has gotten so cheap! > > >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. Exactly right! > > >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. That right, in Win3.x you have to explicitly set that up in AUTOEXEC.BAT if that's the behavior you want, otherwise you will boot up to a simple DOS prompt. > > >WIN98 is completely DOS free and BILL GATES brags about that all > >the time. Nonsense, Win98 is just warmed-over and tweaked-up Win95 as described below: > > 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). Yes, Win98 is an awful resource hog -- the overhead negates the advantages of the minor bug fixes. Even the very latest IE runs (as well as an M$ browser ever run) under Win95. > > 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). I have no trouble at all believing that! > > 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). Well put. > > >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. More presumptive baloney. My elder son is sort of a old-DOS-game collector and finds that the vast bulk of them work just fine with the Win95 GUI loaded and running. Win95 has rather elaborate facilities to accomodate DOS programs that attempt direct hardware access -- there are times that it fails fatally, but for those programs one can resort to raw pre-GUI DOS 7. > > 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). This is correct. > > >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. This is so poorly written I'm not even going to attempt to parse out what it really is trying to say. > > 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. Yup. > > >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 agree, he's very misinformed about what's actually going on -- "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!" > I dislike it since it's: > > * (more or less) impossible to install hardware into it Sorry, here we disagree. If you do things in the correct order, Win95's hardware detection is really quite reliable given the correct driver(s). It should be reliable, the hardware detection code is provided by the hardware manufacturers themselves, who (here's where the monopoly aspect comes in) pay M$ for the privilege of being included in the Win95 hardware lists! > * slows down your computer so much Again we disagree, on my pre-Pentium hardware Win95 is no slower overall than Win3.11. It does take up more RAM, but I have a fairly fast SCSI disk subsystem and disk swapping is quite fast -- and much less crash-prone that is is under Win3.11. > * hangs without any reason No more often than Win3.11, and it recovers more coherently most of the time. > * way to big (or "demanding on the hardware") Win95 works OK in 16, 24, or 32 MB. I can't say the same for Win98 or NT. > * (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 I've had the same big "Keen" mouse since '91 -- I've had to clean it and re-align the optics a few times, but it's still working fine as we speak. > > There are probably more reasons which I have forgotten (or that > other people see as reasons). Unfortunately, without Win95 I'd be cut off from too many improved and/or fixed program revisions. Sound card and video support is also far more up-to-date, and the 32-bit Winsock apps are generally quite a bit more powerful and stable than their DOS and 16-bit Windoze counterparts. __________________________________________________ http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.