Microsoft Windows!

[Calum]

m.o'brien, i know little to nothing about those memory managers, so please let me know what you know, since i imagine it will be useful. it would be good to get those other GUIs on the go and learn some sort of DOS configuration stuff just for the sake of it. i seem to remember i had a mouse driver that worked in DOS but if i started the GUI (can't remember which one!) the mouse no longer worked (not so useful).

as for Caldera ClosedDOS, i think i would rather go straight to MSDOS 6.22 if i really can't get FreeDOS to do it for me. then i'll get my FreeDOS live CD and copy huge chunks of the OS over because it really is better in many ways over MSDOS.

sux, seriously, i agree with you but if they had the registry divided into one file per app, and made all the stuff that would bear it read only, then we would see a lot less errors (because of the read only thing) and any errors that did occur (in the editable config files) would be isolated to one particular app. This is how it works in linux and other *ix systems already, and always has. it is stable, because it is sensible. also because the editable config files tend to be readable and editable by humans in linux, you can simply edit them yourself with very little knowledge (it's not esoteric like regedit) or just delete the offending file and the app will create a new default one. i did this recently with GAIM in fact.

edit: here's the readme for the version of FreeDOS i hope to use btw:
http://smokeping.planetmirror.com/pub/freedos/files/distributions/beta9rc2/readme.txt
a furhter edit:
ah yes, here's the GUI i was talking about before:
http://www.qubeos.com/screens/index.htm

[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: Calum ]

[hm_murdock]

it looks a whole heckuva lot like Be.

do you have any links to better screenies?

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
m.o'brien, i know little to nothing about those memory managers, so please let me know what you know, since i imagine it will be useful.

Ok... There are three memory manager
files:

himem.exe
emm386
FXDMS

Emm386 works together with himem.exe.  FXDMS is not compatible with either one.  FXDMS works with DOS32 programs like SEAL.  Emm386 works with older programs like GEM (including FreeGEM).

[avello500]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
it can't be simply because the binaries for the whole of MSDOS 6.22 and windows for workgroups including the extra printer drivers fit onto eleven floppies. so most of it has to have been added later for windows 98, 2000, xp etc. i suspect that not much code has survived from windows' GUI days through to the 2000/XP releases to be honest since they would likely need to recompile even all the things they have left relatively the same, which would likely involve large rewrites for updated file formats and to implement new API to replace some of the deprecated API in mswindows 3.x. Sorry, i know that's boring, but i suspect it is true.

To be honest i think they are worried that if they release the code for windows 3.11, a team of hackers will get together and make some GPL version of windows which will threaten to take what part of the market has not already gone to the BSD/Linux mob.

can you imagine a GPL development model fueled mswindows, based on mswindows 3.11? before any of that registry stuff? all the mistakes in windows since about 1993 could be identified, avoided and generally better solutions could be made. bad code could be replaced and within a few years a monster open source windows could be competing with the 'real' thing. of course by this time the two windowss would not be all that intercompatible. there would be programs that ran on both of course, and all the open source programs (thunderbird, mozilla, openoffice.org) would have versions for both etc, but as you can see now, one would be free. and it would be more stable. and all the open source programs would run on it. and they would be free. and unlike linux it has two advantages:
1) it really is windows, so the sheep would not balk at using it
2) it really is windows, so an unspecified amount of windows software will actually run on it, as is. with no emulators.

that's why it will never happen.

i went to a happy place while reading this. to bad it will never happen.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:



Ok... There are three memory manager
files:

himem.exe
emm386
FXDMS

Emm386 works together with himem.exe.  FXDMS is not compatible with either one.  FXDMS works with DOS32 programs like SEAL.  Emm386 works with older programs like GEM (including FreeGEM).

and do these memory managers have to be obtained separately or are they customarily part of the OS?
what's usual procedure for using them if one wants to run programs that need one and programs that need the other?

also the fact of me using FreeDOS may add a new dimension since it is a newer DOS and is written from scratch, it may know how to use more memory than 640k (what idiot thought that would be sufficient) and may not need a memory manager, but will programs which expect a memory manager be able to run on it? will FreeDOS have some interface to those programs which make them all think they are using their favourite memory manager?
i don't know.
in fact i still know nothing about them!  

[Calum]

well a couple of clickthroughs from a link avello posted and
http://www.freedos.org/freedos/news/technote/161.html

which is a lot less promising than it looks. FreeDOS version and hardware are radically different from what i hope to use, but i will keep looking.

probably won't be doing this till next month after my next assignment's in.

edit: http://www.freedos.org/freedos/news/technote/200.html
bugger! i don't fulfill criteria number 1!

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Calum ]

[Calum]

ok, what's the deal with DR-DOS anyway?
i can't figure it out from here:
http://drdos.com/products.html

i got a full download of DR-DOS 7.03 and there was source code too for free, so why are they charging?

anybody know how to find out the licence for DR-DOS? i haven't looked at the disks i now have of DR-DOS too carefully yet so maybe the licence is on them...

perhaps i will be using dr-dos after all depending on how open source it turns out to be and how incompatible freeDOS turns out to be.

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:


and do these memory managers have to be obtained separately or are they customarily part of the OS?
what's usual procedure for using them if one wants to run programs that need one and programs that need the other?

also the fact of me using FreeDOS may add a new dimension since it is a newer DOS and is written from scratch, it may know how to use more memory than 640k (what idiot thought that would be sufficient) and may not need a memory manager, but will programs which expect a memory manager be able to run on it? will FreeDOS have some interface to those programs which make them all think they are using their favourite memory manager?
i don't know.
in fact i still know nothing about them!    

 
The memory managers I mention are specifically part of the freeDOS project and are included with the distributions.  They are described in the included freedos help files.  They must be loaded in the config.sys file, so the mutual exclusivity is a problem:  You must edit config.sys and reboot to change the extended memory manager.  You have the option of using non-FreeDOS memory managers such as the one from MSDOS or a 3rd party memory manager.

FreeDOS is a 16bit operating system.  Like MSDOS, PCDOS, DRDOS, it is limited by 640k conventional memory.  However, like the other DOS, it can use extended memory managers to use higher RAM.  Like the other DOS systems, it can run 32 bit DOS programs to use all computer memory (SEAL is an example of this).

[Calum]

hmm, i wonder if there's some DOS howto archive i can look this up at. the DOS stuff on the net seems to be laid out totally differently from the linux stuff...

re: Qube screenies:

http://freshmeat.net/screenshots/20535/

http://www.sourtimes.org/coders/qube.png

that second one looks nothing like what i had, in fact it looks like an old fvwm or xfce screenshot to be honest.

[Xeen]

With all the comments made in this thread about the Windows registry, I thought I would add my comment about it:

The Windows registry is the most stupid thing I've ever seen.
Before the registry became a very common thing to mess around with (which happened soon after Win95 and even more with Win98), the way to make programs run automatically upon logon was to put them in the Start Menu\Startup folder. Simple! But with the registry came a key called RUN. Whatever commands you put in run will run automatically when you logon to Windows.  I suspect this was done to give people less control over what is started when they turn on the computer and boot to Windows. Today, 95% of the software that makes itself run automatically upon logon uses the Run key in the registry. The startup folders in the Start Menu are barely used by anyone anymore. Not only does this give you less control over YOUR OWN computer, but also contributes to bloat which in turn contributes to system slowdown.

[gabyde]

Hi guys!

> That windows is shit, yes in that one they dont > spy on you because I dont think Internet was
> alaviable at that time.

Haha, I'm surfing the net since 1994...

> there's no registry (a HUGE problem with later > windowss in my opinion) and few dlls.

Huh?? My registry is about 4000 lines long and DLLs are nearly 1000. I'm talking about 3.1, not any so-called "Windows Operating System".

> and this screen willl explain what happens on
> everywindows and will never be fixed
> http://www.gaby.de/win3x/screens/nov01.gif

No, this doesn't happen on everywindows. This only happens if you try to fake NT and run a 32bit exe file, which is intelligent enough to notice that something is weired about this "NT".
Look at the taskbar and you'll see that a task named "lie about Win32" is currently running. You can use it to fake either NT or W95.

> um, i actually suspect (although i am not in
> any way betting on it) that that shot has been > doctored.

Good for you that you don't bet. There's nothing doctored.

> the URL that it's windows
> 3x but look, it has a windows start menu and
> toolbar which was not included in windows until > windows 95

If you look at the page title instead (http://www.gaby.de/win3x/escreens.htm), you'll see that these are Calmira Screenshots. I don't know any 3.1 user who still uses Program Manager...
Would you?????

Bye, bye
Gaby

(webmistress of win31.de)

[Calum]

i don't know any 3.1 user at all!

well, i know very little about DOS and haven't tried calmira yet. was a little thrown at the windows error considering all the other stuff in the picture is later add on software then.

Gaby, your site is a very good one, by the way, if i do get a windows 3.11 or dos system installed, your site will be on my favourites list.

[ September 08, 2003: Message edited by: Calum ]

[gabyde]

Hi Calum,

> i don't know any 3.1 user at all!

Oh, now you know at least one )

> well, i know very little about DOS and haven't
> tried calmira yet.

Calmira is really great. At first sight it looks like Win9x, but it's a thousand times better  
You can turn it upside down and shake it and it just keeps on running (same for 3.1 itself).

For those who are curious:
http://www.calmira.de/

> Gaby, your site is a very good one, by the way,
> if i do get a windows 3.11 or dos system
> installed, your site will be on my favourites
> list.

Oh, thanks!!

Bye, bye
Gaby

[Calum]

well i did indeed install a windows.

it is caldera dr-dos 7.03 with the gnu tools and some of the exe and com files from freedos copied over the top (but caldera's edit.com kicks the ass off of freedos' edit.exe so i kept it, and a lot of other stuff, dr-dos seems kind of picky about being ripped to pieces) with windows for workgroups 3.11 on top (dell oem version), and calmira II 3.3 (yes? c33 was the name of the zip file) on top.
Yes the look is identical to windows 95 but it is a shitload more configurable and by fuck it's fast compared to any windows i have ever used!

so dr-dos is kind of open source, calmira and the gnu stuff is all open source, windows isn't.

I think if the calmira people and the freedos people could meet in the middle we would be starting to see this dream open source windows i was talking about before.

i am still baffled about how to get it to connect to the internet using my dialup thing (still haven't tried though to install winsock and all that, will not be using IE so can't follow any of the howtos (yes they ALL assume i use IE 3, which comes with own tcp stack and microsoft java virtual machine apparently))

screenshot to follow when i have some program capable of doing images in windows 3.11, i wonder if gimp and moz and all that will run under it?
and how do i get the gnu compiler collection and install open source source packages on it?

[Master of Reality]

thats awesome... i  should try that.... hmmm... *looks at computer that doesnt do shit beside him*