Strange Problem with Win3.0 MME1.0

2»

Comments

  • 36 bit and 88 bit never heard of it. Wasnt win 2k the first true non dos os?
  • edited March 2007
    anantha92 wrote:
    36 bit and 88 bit never heard of it. Wasnt win 2k the first true non dos os?
    I believe so, if I am thinking clearly (tired), DOS was the primary foundation of Windows from 1.0 until Millennium Edition, afterward the NT architecture fully took over forming the full 32-bit foundation.

    It was through the Virtual DOS Machines setup in Win32 from 2K through XP that 16-bit programs are supported which is included in the 32-bit versions of XP based on NT. However, this feature was dropped from the 64-bit versions of Windows and is not present in any version of Windows Vista.
  • No, the first windows OS (Non-Dos) was NT 3.1 since before that it was OS/2
  • yea i was wondering wtf win xp was the first non dos os? I knew about the NTs from 3.51 and up. 16bit was emulated in all those os's, XP used some ntvdm to emulate dos. 16bit support was fully dropped from Win Xp x64 onwards. Vista Is the first true os to not support 16bit at all.
  • BlueSun wrote:
    No, the first windows OS (Non-Dos) was NT 3.1 since before that it was OS/2
    My mistake, like I said, I'm tired, however, I think I was more thinking along the lines of consumer versions rather than business versions of Windows in that statement.
  • os2fan wrote:
    When a memory manager is loaded into DOS, it becomes a 32-bit OS.

    ...

    So if I put diesel into my petrol engine, it becomes a diesel engine?
  • thts completely not his point, you engine cant emulate that. the dos is to startup the os into 32bit. It changes, so its more of your engine converts the diesel and uses it to pump the petrol engine.
  • You can't just make 16bit code run as 32bit :|.
  • no it sort of launches the starutp and boots into a 32bit os. ITs the same concept as emulation although this not.
    wikipedia:
    "The introduction of 32-bit File Access in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 meant that 16-bit real mode MS-DOS was no longer used for managing the files while Windows was running". And for 95 and 98 the DOS is now a 16/32 bit hybrid kernel.
  • It bootstraps it.

    Just like OSX bootstraps windows with bootcamp (I think at least)
  • Yep, tahts wht i meant.
  • anantha92 wrote:
    Vista Is the first true os to not support 16bit at all.

    NTVDM and WoWExec are still VERY present, as are a few system-shipped Win16 applications.

    -Q
  • It's only the 64bit versions that don't have it afaik.
  • Yea, I'm pretty sure that all MS's OSes only emulate one bit-architecture less (EG. 32bit can emulate 16, 64 32).

    -Q
  • It is hardware that starts up in 16b or 32b code. If the computer starts up in 16b code, then *someone* has to make it work in 32-bit mode. This is the role of a virtual memory manager, whether it's QEMM or EMM386 or VMM32.VXD or NTOSKRNL.EXE or OSLDR, it really does not matter.

    Not all 32-bit OS run all 32-bit apps. Just because it's called WINZIP32, it does not mean that an OS that can't run it isn't 32-bit. Here, we're talking of a particular Win32 API, that has many different forms, and runs on top of many operating systems.

    One notes that something like cmd.exe can not run in either the DOS mode, or the CMDCON layer (which is the underlying OS in the NT systems), because Win32 requires another OS to boot. Win32 (either Win9x or Winnt), is as much a "layer" as it has always been.

    You can not, for example, run the NT cmd.exe from four boot floppies in the way you can OS/2's cmd.exe. But you can get it to run some proggies, like the Bluecon command processor, or CMDCON, or an install. This is the Windows NT native mode. Windows 32-bit layer, like all windows, is an emulation layer.
  • BOD wrote:
    It's only the 64bit versions that don't have it afaik.

    sorry my bad. I thought it was the 64 at first but i remebered i saw somewhere it was dropped in 32 as well. sorry.
  • What is Josh's Server's URL?
  • Anonymous wrote:
    What is Josh's Server's URL?

    I second that! :D
  • Ask him?

    -Q
  • edited April 2007
    Just a bit of feedback, It still doesn't want to work for me for some reason. So for now I'm not going to bother with it.
  • Yeah it just doesn't work. Maybe it's the fact that it's a Tandy version (if that's the one your using). Cause Tandys are only 80% IBM Compatible and they don't like other types of computers.
  • As far as I know thats really the only version around. If I'm remembering right Tandy really owned the market at first when it came to multimedia enabled pc's. Would running it on a falvour of OS2 work I wonder?. Maybe not, but still...
Sign In or Register to comment.