Hi,
I know that only Windows 3.1 works on DOSBox 0.63 but most (if not all) of you know that Version 0.65 was recently released. Is it possible to put any other versions of Windows onto 0.65 now? Such as Windows 1.0 or 2.0?
"You have entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a grue."
wrote:Hi,
I know that only Windows 3.1 works on DOSBox 0.63 but most (if not all) of you know that Version 0.65 was recently released. Is it possible to put any other versions of Windows onto 0.65 now? Such as Windows 1.0 or 2.0?
No, it isn't. No new development on that part.
JAL
no intentions on fixing those as well.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
There is really no support on making that work and it's better that way. There are other emulators that allow you to install and run Windows 95. This one is called DOSBox...
Out of curiosity: can anybody remember a single piece of useful software (preferrably a game 😉 ) that runs under Win1.x/2.x but does not run under 3.x? Playing Devil's advocate here, but I want to know if there is actually any justification for those questions. So far, I could not find any.
wrote:Out of curiosity: can anybody remember a single piece of useful software (preferrably a game 😉 ) that runs under Win1.x/2.x but does not run under 3.x? Playing Devil's advocate here, but I want to know if there is actually any justification for those questions. So far, I could not find any.
Indeed, because presumably any 16 bit program designed for windows 1/2 ought to work just fine in a future version.
Well, there is probably some incompatibility....
I remember long, long time ago when Windows 3.0 appeared. In one review its author wrote as one of disadvantages of windows 3.0 incompatibility with applications for older versions of Windows...
I do not know how big problem this was - I started really using Windows only since the version Windows 3.1.
Mirek
Games:
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/win3x/
Applications:
What are you doing today Charlie Brown
(well, I was a kid)
And - oh - the built-in notepad, still nowadays' mos useful application in Windows
No, the recovery console is the most useful application because it can fix stuff not necessarily broken by Windows itself (e.g. messed up MFT (cause of aggressive Linux behaviour)).
@Topic: I believe I recall some Issues with Falcon 3 in Windows 3.11 but I'm not sure.... was a lil young then 😉
wrote:no intentions on fixing those as well.
Just out of curiosity (and it may be covered before, but hey, I'm lazy 😀): what weird things does M$ do in Windows 1.0/2.0 that's incompatible with DOSbox? One (at least me 😀) would expect these versions (given they run on any processor, in real mode) to run without a problem.
JAL
well they don't do that much weird things.
They just stick very strict to the size definitions of certain dos objects.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
wrote:well they don't do that much weird things.
They just stick very strict to the size definitions of certain dos objects.
Ah, I would have guessed DOSbox closely follows the specification of all DOS objects. Or do Windows 1 and 2 not run on higher DOS version (e.g. 5.0) either?
JAL
they probably will.
it's one object that is causing problems. Not sure which one.
Wd checked it out once.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
wrote:they probably will.
it's one object that is causing problems. Not sure which one.
Wd checked it out once.
I believe he got angry with me once for asking about Win 1 and 2, so I won't do that again 😀.
JAL
heh. It is annoying to constantly get questions about loading Windows in DosBox.......and then expect Windows in DosBox to constantly work when it's not (for now) really a DosBox goal.
I don't remember the stuff for win2.x, but the win1.x installer (or whichever
version was broken) had the stack very close to some working area, and
some table got 1 byte of data too much written. Yet this would require
a rewrite of several parts, thus it is definitely nothing of importance.
