www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Switch to Windows 95
By Thom Holwerda on 2018-02-05 23:08:50

In November last year I wrote about the forgotten and obscure feature of early Windows 95 builds that lets you run Windows 3.1 in a window on Windows 95. Since then I was wondering if this would still work on the final build (950) of Windows 95, considering so much has changed since build 58s.

I won't spoil it.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-22
.
Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By malxau on 2018-02-05 23:47:05
OS/2 2.0 (1992) had a full screen Windows 3.0 environment, which also had a minimized icon that would switch back to OS/2 when clicked. In order to make this work, Windows needed to defer memory management to OS/2 via DPMI. It also had a "seamless" mode which used video driver trickery to display Windows on the same desktop (and overlapping with) OS/2 applications, and of course that needed the dual mouse drivers etc.

Seeing this makes me wonder how much code, or at least inspiration, was shared between the two.
Permalink - Score: 6
.
Reminds me of Windows 3.11 on modern hardware in 2016
By dungsaga on 2018-02-06 00:47:24
It took a year for one guy to install Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on modern hardware in 2016 (as a side project).
http://yeokhengmeng.com/2016/09/...

This is the guy who did “Make the 486 Great Again!” and was featured in OSNews in “The oldest x86 processor still supported by a modern Linux kernel?”.
http://www.osnews.com/story/3015...
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By galvanash on 2018-02-06 03:47:21
Once you have MSDOS virtualized there is very little left to do to be honest... Windows 3.1 was basically a DOS application. The only obstacles are presenting it with compatible virtualized hardware (video card, sound card, etc.) with working windows drivers for them.

You can still do this on Windows 10 if you like btw, just use dosbox:

https://www.howtogeek.com/230359/...

Or if your nostalgic and want to do it the old school way (and can get your hands on the version of WINOS that OS/2 used with DPMI support) you can use dosemu on Linux to do it (this has worked for like 20 years)

http://www.dosemu.org/docs/READM...

Of course nowadays there is little point as dosbox exists on Linux now...
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Darkmage on 2018-02-06 08:20:08
Except Dosbox still fails to emulate a lot of timings correctly and runs slowly in a lot of cases. It's a brilliant piece of code/emulation, but still flawed. This isn't written in anger. The Dosbox developers are some of the loveliest people on the internet. I suspect there are limits to what a PC can actually do to emulate PC architecture and it wouldn't surprise me if Dosbox is hitting those limits hard.
Permalink - Score: 5
.
As others have mentioned it....
By brostenen on 2018-02-06 09:31:28
I too ran Win 3.11 productivity software on my Os/2 dx2-66 machine with 8mb of ram, back in 1995/96. Wich was Microsoft office 4.2 and it ran well with that complete Win-3.11 installation under the hood.

When I think hard, there was something about 3.11 on 95 back then. Never got the time to use that feature, and as Os/2 died slowly, I switched to Windows98 in early 1999.

Edited 2018-02-06 09:32 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Zoidberg on 2018-02-06 11:39:39
I believe it can be installed using PCem now, which probably works much better.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[3]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Morgan on 2018-02-06 12:29:34
I always understood it was because DOSBox was optimized for DOS gaming, and Windows 3.x suffered as a result. From the DOSBox FAQ (emphasis mine):

> According to its developers, DOSBox is focused on DOS games. Non-gaming DOS applications are not the primary focus of DOSBox, even though most DOS applications might in fact work within DOSBox. The DOSBox project has a policy of not adding features that aren't used by DOS games if they take significant effort to implement, are likely to be a source of bugs or portability problems, and/or impact performance. For example, features such as parallel ports, long filenames and Ctrl-Break emulations are never officially supported in DOSBox. Some enhanced DOSBox SVN Builds may support these features, and you may try these builds if you want or need such features, but they are not supported by the DOSBox Team. If you want to run serious DOS applications within a DOS emulator, you'd better try dedicated emulators such as vDos and vDosPlus instead, which are designed to run DOS applications rather than games.

https://www.dosbox.com/wiki/DOSBo...
Permalink - Score: 7
.
RE: As others have mentioned it....
By phoenix on 2018-02-06 18:17:10
I installed OS/2 Warp (via floppy disks) on my 486dx4 133 MHz system with 8? 16? MB of RAM back in university. Unfortunately, it had a WinModem installed and couldn't connect to the Internet via dial-up. :(

But, it included Win-OS/2, and there were Win 3.x drivers for the modem. :) Once it was connected via Windows, the OS/2 apps could surf the web/gopher/IRC/chat. :D

Eventually got Win98SE running on that system as there wasn't much in the way of useful OS/2 software. But it was fun playing around with it while it lasted.
Permalink - Score: 5
.
RE[2]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Z_God on 2018-02-06 19:00:27
Note that you can run the regular Windows 3.1 on DOSEMU for many years already.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[2]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Drumhellar on 2018-02-06 21:28:08
> Windows 3.1 was basically a DOS application.

No, it wasn't. It was an actual operating system, really, by any reasonable definition of the word. Basically, everything that an operating system does, Windows 3.1 without using DOS, and handled many things that DOS couldn't.

Sure, it started from DOS, but when you launched Windows, it would replace DOS with a 32-bit hypervisor that would run a virtual machine with a single instance of Windows 3.1, as well as DOS virtual machines for running DOS apps. The Windows 3.1 instance and the DOS virtual machines were pre-emptively multitasked.

As for the Windows 3.1 machine, it provided virtual memory (including paging to disk), its own interrupt handler (and didn't use DOS's), it used its own drivers for disks, mouse, audio, printing, and networking (When available - it could also use DOS drivers if Windows drivers weren't available). The disk driver is especially significant, as it as a 32-bit protected mode driver that completely by passed DOS and BIOS function calls.

Sure, it was closely tied to DOS, but it was definitely an operating system in its own right, and certainly not just "basically a DOS application."

It's really more like... an operating system that runs next to DOS, and sometimes asks DOS for a cup of sugar or whatever.
Permalink - Score: 7

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-22

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?