Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se. So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something about this program that dont get along with Win98. Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks? PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not available in other programs. Thanks
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 You might get a better result by installing Windows 95 or 98 on a virtual machine running on a system with a more modern OS. The Virtual PC setup will allow you to specify the RAM size - accept the default for W9x. Otherwise, try restricting the memory size using either of the techniques described here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912 For a Windows 3.1 application I would recommend no more than 64Mb -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com... >I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects > on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work > on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of > Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with > 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. > > I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se. > So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else > running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something > about this program that dont get along with Win98. > > Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a > workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks? > > PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not > available in other programs. > > Thanks >
Guest MEB Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 The program likely contains/contained its own memory management which is now in conflict with the Windows manager/management. You can try: setting up its link/pif to use its own environment/management; running mkcompat.exe in %windir%\system; create a batch file, setting up its requirements in the properties. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org _ _ ~~ <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com... | I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects | on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work | on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of | Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with | 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. | | I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se. | So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else | running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something | about this program that dont get along with Win98. | | Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a | workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks? | | PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not | available in other programs. | | Thanks |
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com... >I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects > on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work > on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of > Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with > 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. > > I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se. > So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else > running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something > about this program that dont get along with Win98. > > Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a > workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks? > > PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not > available in other programs. > > Thanks >
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:53:47 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote: > The program likely contains/contained its own memory management which is >now in conflict with the Windows manager/management. > > You can try: > setting up its link/pif to use its own environment/management; > running mkcompat.exe in %windir%\system; > create a batch file, setting up its requirements in the properties. Thanks for the reply. I ran mkcompat.exe so far it dont work, but I am a little confused about the part where you say %windir%\system. When I ran mkcompat.exe I chose the program file. Then I chose several of the settings (most of them) to make it appear as if I have win3.1. I know how to make a batch file, I'm just not sure about that line you posted. Please make an example. I guess I'm not sure where/when to attempt to enter the program .EXE The file name and path are: TAP.EXE C:\Tap\TAP.EXE (program name is Text Appeal) It does not run in dos, and as I said wont run in win98. The program is for making circular/curved text for making pin on buttons. Goes with my button maker machine. Thanks LM
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: >Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98. I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in 3.1 from a PIF? thanks LM
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 You mean with Virtual PC? Jeff Richards wrote: > Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com... >> I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects >> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work >> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of >> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with >> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. >> >> I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se. >> So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else >> running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something >> about this program that dont get along with Win98. >> >> Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a >> workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks? >> >> PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not >> available in other programs. >> >> Thanks
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Yes. Windows 3.1 is just another DOS application. You could consider tweaking the PIF settings to get adequate performance, but from memory the default works OK. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:qtm8d493bku90m3j3k35htc3kfeeilb9d5@4ax.com... > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards" > <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: > >>Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98. > > I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder > under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in > 3.1 from a PIF? > > thanks > > LM
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Color me skeptical here: How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell? Please explain in detail how you did that. Jeff Richards wrote: > Yes. Windows 3.1 is just another DOS application. You could consider > tweaking the PIF settings to get adequate performance, but from memory the > default works OK. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:qtm8d493bku90m3j3k35htc3kfeeilb9d5@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards" >> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98. >> >> I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder >> under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in >> 3.1 from a PIF? >> >> thanks >> >> LM
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it. The DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it perfectly well. Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Color me skeptical here: > How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually > tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell? Please explain > in detail how you did that. >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")? Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" - in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a rough idea of this critical difference) Jeff Richards wrote: > It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it. > The > DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it > perfectly well. > > Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Color me skeptical here: >> How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually >> tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell?
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 There was no fundamental change from Windows 3.1 to 9x, although of course there was a significant increase in complexity. Windows 9x is still an installed DOS application - you can boot to DOS and then run WIN to start it. The issue is that the DOS provided in the NT-based versions of Windows is not capable of supporting the installation of Win9x, whereas the DOS provided in W9x supports Windows 3.1 just fine. It's a combination of the functionality available in a particular version of DOS and the demands made by Windows. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that > changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")? > Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" - > in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the > Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a > rough idea of this critical difference) > >
Guest FromTheRafters Posted September 20, 2008 Posted September 20, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 There's a difference in the bootstrap. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118579 "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that > changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")? > Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" - > in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the > Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a > rough idea of this critical difference) > > Jeff Richards wrote: >> It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it. >> The >> DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it >> perfectly well. >> >> Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application. >> -- >> Jeff Richards >> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Color me skeptical here: >>> How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you >>> actually >>> tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell? > >
Guest Dan Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In addition, why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the underlying maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!336.entry What are your thoughts and opinions about this argument? "Jeff Richards" wrote: > There was no fundamental change from Windows 3.1 to 9x, although of course > there was a significant increase in complexity. Windows 9x is still an > installed DOS application - you can boot to DOS and then run WIN to start > it. The issue is that the DOS provided in the NT-based versions of Windows > is not capable of supporting the installation of Win9x, whereas the DOS > provided in W9x supports Windows 3.1 just fine. It's a combination of the > functionality available in a particular version of DOS and the demands made > by Windows. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that > > changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")? > > Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" - > > in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the > > Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a > > rough idea of this critical difference) > > > > > > >
Guest Jeff Richards Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... > Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just > a > command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the > maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In > addition, > why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- > Not > There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the > underlying > maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a > Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating > system > like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.
Guest Dan Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Thank you for your reply. "Jeff Richards" wrote: > It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume > bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular > viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a duck > and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... > > Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just > > a > > command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the > > maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In > > addition, > > why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- > > Not > > There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the > > underlying > > maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a > > Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating > > system > > like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. > > > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Jeff Richards wrote: > It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume > bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular > viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a > duck > and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. > -- > Jeff Richards > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... >> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just >> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the >> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. That sounds correct to me too. >> In addition, >> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- >> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the >> underlying >> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a >> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating >> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, there is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in many ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands). BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can in Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x. Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console.
Guest thanatoid Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 letterman@invalid.com wrote in news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com: > Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 Something tells me you will not read this, as it's been a while. But if you ARE reading... Have you checked that VBRUN100.DLL (and 200 and 300) are both in your root and system win directories? Many older programs depend on those but may not necessarily tell you so. Maybe even the 4 version, VB40032.DLL (that goes in system, the others go in both to make sure). -- Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. - Josef Stalin
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On 25 Sep 2008 02:35:42 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote: >letterman@invalid.com wrote in >news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com: > >> Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 > >Something tells me you will not read this, as it's been a while. > >But if you ARE reading... > >Have you checked that VBRUN100.DLL (and 200 and 300) are both in >your root and system win directories? Many older programs depend >on those but may not necessarily tell you so. > >Maybe even the 4 version, VB40032.DLL (that goes in system, the >others go in both to make sure). I'm reading this and still following the thread since I have not gotten the program to work. I have VBRUN100.DLL 200 and 300. All are in the Windows/System folder. I'll copy them to the Windows folder and give it a try. I do recall having to install them in Win3.x, and I probably copied them to Win98 for other older software. I'll see if that helps. Thanks for the help. LM
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >Jeff Richards wrote: >> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume >> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular >> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a >> duck >> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. >> -- >> Jeff Richards >> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) >> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... >>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just >>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the >>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. > >That sounds correct to me too. > >>> In addition, >>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- >>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the >>> underlying >>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a >>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating >>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. > >I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, there >is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in many >ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands). > >BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can in >Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x. > >Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like >NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level >access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console. > If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual boot to either Dos or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive, including the XP files. I know this for fact because my laptop has Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do with 98se.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 letterman@invalid.com wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Jeff Richards wrote: >>> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to >>> consume >>> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing >>> particular >>> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a >>> duck >>> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. >>> -- >>> Jeff Richards >>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) >>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... >>>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was >>>> just >>>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the >>>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. >> >> That sounds correct to me too. >> >>>> In addition, >>>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- >>>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the >>>> underlying >>>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have >>>> a >>>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating >>>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. >> >> I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, >> there >> is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in >> many >> ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands). >> >> BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can >> in >> Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x. >> >> Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like >> NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level >> access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console. >> > > If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual > boot to either Dos You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall) > or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is > formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive, > including the XP files. Of course. > I know this for fact because my laptop has > Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot > option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do > with 98se. But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no real DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.
Guest MEB Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e5IYA4rHJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | letterman@invalid.com wrote: | > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co." | > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: | > | >> Jeff Richards wrote: | >>> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to | >>> consume | >>> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing | >>> particular | >>> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a | >>> duck | >>> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck. | >>> -- | >>> Jeff Richards | >>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) | >>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message | >>> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com... | >>>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was | >>>> just | >>>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the | >>>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. | >> | >> That sounds correct to me too. | >> | >>>> In addition, | >>>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- | >>>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the | >>>> underlying | >>>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have | >>>> a | >>>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating | >>>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke. | >> | >> I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, | >> there | >> is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in | >> many | >> ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands). | >> | >> BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can | >> in | >> Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x. | >> | >> Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like | >> NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level | >> access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console. | >> | > | > If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual | > boot to either Dos | | You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say like | DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT | talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about the | old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through 7.1 | (which came with Win98SE, as I recall) | | > or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is | > formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive, | > including the XP files. | | Of course. | | > I know this for fact because my laptop has | > Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot | > option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do | > with 98se. | | But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no real | DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs | DOS-like commands in a box, however. | | I think you could go a bit farther than that, since the roots of NT are apparently taken from Posix/Unix.... perhaps that might help to provide the WHY and WHERE of the two different accessing routines being used... and all those NT based users think they aren't using Linux... I guess they aren't TECHNICALLY, but they are using Microsoft's hacks of Unix... geeessss -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org a Peoples' counsel _ _ ~~
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say like >DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT >talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about the >old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through 7.1 >(which came with Win98SE, as I recall) > I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files". I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD. After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k. When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K. >> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is >> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive, >> including the XP files. > >Of course. > >> I know this for fact because my laptop has >> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot >> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do >> with 98se. > >But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no real >DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs >DOS-like commands in a box, however. > Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP aggravates me. I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is all I need. I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:55:05 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote: >| >| But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no >real >| DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs >| DOS-like commands in a box, however. >| >| > > I think you could go a bit farther than that, since the roots of NT are >apparently taken from Posix/Unix.... perhaps that might help to provide the >WHY and WHERE of the two different accessing routines being used... >and all those NT based users think they aren't using Linux... I guess they >aren't TECHNICALLY, but they are using Microsoft's hacks of Unix... geeessss > >-- >MEB That explains a lot about why I can not stand XP. I hate Linux too. At the same time, I loved Dos back in the old days, and while earlier versions of windows 3.x and 9.x were poor, I have always liked Win98. It has it's problems, but its palatable. Too bad it has been abandoned. It could have been improved and become one hell of an OS. Of course we all know MS is only interested in adding bloat, which needs more powerful hardware, and thus they are kissing ass to the hardware manufacturers. If Win98 could run on the latest fast computers, it would likely break the sound barrier. But instead, everytime a faster computer is designed, MS slows it back down to the same speed the 386 computer performed in 1990. Everytime I see a computer running XP or Vista, I ask myself what the heck have we really gained. Then I answer myself by saying "NOTHING". OK, given the benefit of the doubt, Win2K and up, have better control of USB and can produce higher graphics. But is there much more? "NO". We have only designed a system filled with useless and often annoying bloat, which is designed for total idiots who have no means to control their own computers. Microsoft could have developed their "NT" based OS, AND continued to develop the dos based Win9x. After all, Linux has reams of different distros. Why must MS only have one choice? Are we all supposed to be the same? Then too, I remember when I was still running Windows 3.x and MS was offerring Windows NT at the same time. At least then, there was the choice. At that same time there were also other alternative GUI operating systems, such as OS2, GEM, GEOWORKS, etc. (as well as Linux). Now in 2008 we only have two choices for the PC computer. Whatever is the latest version of MS Windows, and Linux. That's it. Why are there not other software developers designing other OSs? Are we all stuck with MS only? Unless we want to struggle with Linux, which is not made for the average homeowner or small office. If MS is doing anything, they are forcing us to sell our PCs and buy Macintosh computers. I'm old enough that I will likely be able to run Win98 for the rest of my life, for what I do on a computer. But I fel sorry for the younger people who will have to either follow MS like sheep, or switch to the Mac. Maybe the PC computer will soon be a relic. I know that I will never use XP or Vista. I dont even care for the Win2k on my laptop, but I seldom use that computer anyhow, and I can always dual boot it to w98. I just know that I wont ever "adjust" to XP or Vista, and likely the next OS from MS, because it will be more of the same. I am also not willing to fight with Linux. If I do outlive Win98, and I am forced to relearn the use of a computer, it will be a Mac. I've used them, they are not as user friendly as Win98, but they get the job done and dont have all the problems of the NT based windows, nor require a person to spend years learning Linux. Then, add to that, the fact that MS has developed XP and Up, to make their users totally reliant on them. When MS decides to abandon XP (and eventually Vista), they can now FORCE the users to buy a new OS, as well as a new computer. When XP is abandoned, MS will probably no longer offer Activation. So, after 30 days of use, our screens will go blank, and all our data will be suspended in limbo. NO THANKS! At least with Win98, I can continue to reinstall it whenever I get a replacement computer, and all I have to do is enter the same product code that came with the CD. I think it's not going to be long before MS abandons XP, and forces all users to go to Vista. MS didn't create their Activation process just to stop piracy, they did it more because they can now force users to upgrade, and thus make more money from users, as well as forcing users to continually buy new hardware and keep relearning how to use their computer.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98 letterman@invalid.com wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say >> like >> DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm >> NOT >> talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about >> the >> old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through >> 7.1 >> (which came with Win98SE, as I recall) >> > I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from > Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer > the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot > floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files". > I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to > C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD. > > After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos > alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k. Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP, right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want). > When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K. Same comment as above. (more below) >>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is >>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive, >>> including the XP files. >> >> Of course. >> >>> I know this for fact because my laptop has >>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot >>> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do >>> with 98se. >> >> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no >> real >> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs >> DOS-like commands in a box, however. >> > Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about > XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP > aggravates me. I'm not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so aggravated by. One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example; and trust me, I did!). Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances about XP are you talking about? > I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder > and that is all I need. > > I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it > back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it, > but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and > Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw > it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!
Recommended Posts