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
.
RE[3]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By ianm on 2018-02-06 23:34:00
Good times!

Your post brought be back to Usenet newsgroup discussions from late 80's through early 90's.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[2]: As others have mentioned it....
By brostenen on 2018-02-07 21:05:04
True... Shure there were the standard text editor and spreadsheet, that were on the bonus pack. They were usefull to an extent. I did not have my machine on the internet untill around 2001. It was on a new machine that I had gotten at that time. So I ran Win98 untill I could get WinXP. I got it when SP2 were released, and ran it untill Win7. Then I switched to Linux in 2016 for good. Yeah... Os/2 was a pretty good operating system, and I really enjoyed using it. Programs were, as you mention it, a big drawback. Yet it was the best operating system during that time period. Again... It failed due to a bad software catalog. If only..... If only just.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: As others have mentioned it....
By zima on 2018-02-08 00:06:34
Though OS/2 had the ultimate goal of returning to IBM the control over computer market ...so perhaps it's better that it didn't succeed.

Edited 2018-02-08 00:25 UTC
Permalink - Score: 4
.
RE[3]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Andre on 2018-02-09 10:25:39
What makes an operating system an operating system rather then an application, especially in the (MS-)DOS days? Back in the days where each application that handles sounds had to include its own support, rather then rely on the operating systems support.

Stating that Windows 3.1 used its own drivers, well.... running on top of (MS-)DOS you had to for most hardware. Okay, there were DOS drivers for mice, but that's about it. And for CD-ROM drives, Windows 3.1 depended on the support DOS offered.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
Hmmm... I suppose...
By cjcox on 2018-02-09 16:24:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5...
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[4]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Drumhellar on 2018-02-09 18:34:40
> What makes an operating system an operating system rather then an application, especially in the (MS-)DOS days?

At the most basic, probably the interrupt handler. When an interrupt is generated by a piece of hardware, the OS is what handles it. When a piece of software generates an interrupt, it is to notify the OS that there is work to be done.

When Windows loads, it nukes the DOS interrupt handler and replaces it with its own. Windows (not DOS) handles both hardware and software interrupts. The hardware is interacting with Windows directly, not DOS.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By leech on 2018-02-09 20:29:14
I could be completely wrong about this (first version of Windows I ran extensively was 95, I only did troubleshooting for 3.1) but wasn't 3.1 a 16bit only operating system, and indeed was just a Shell on top of DOS? It wasn't until '95 that Fat32 was introduced (in it's buggy form). There were a few different DOS shells out at the time prior to Windows 3.x becoming more popular.

Edit: Yup, at least according to Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win...

Edited 2018-02-09 20:30 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[6]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By ssokolow on 2018-02-10 03:22:56
While it exposed a 16-bit, cooperatively multitasked API originally developed for an earlier version of Windows, Windows 3.1x pioneered many of the backwards-compatibility hacks that Windows 9x perfected.

In addition to having its own EXE format separate from DOS and introducing The Registry, Windows 3.1x had protected mode drivers and various 32-bit subsystems, but it used DOS as its bootloader and legacy driver API.

(That's why Windows 95 has CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT. Because "anyone who doesn't care about legacy hardware support will buy Windows NT", Windows 9x did some startup hackery where it would take over from things like HIMEM.SYS while booting and then perform surgery to transfer any hacks applied to them into itself so that any drivers for things like backup services which had hooked the DOS infrastructure would get monkey-patched into the Windows 9x operations.)

One example of that is how Windows 95 would slow to a crawl while performing floppy disk I/O, because it had to go through BIOS routines that might have been hooked by 3rd-party software.

(Source: The Old New Thing)

Also, trust me on this. Windows 3.x is a LOT more than a desktop shell. The memory management implementation alone bears much more resemblance to classic MacOS.

(Source: I have a big pile of books on Windows 3.x APIs and internals that I bought for retro-hobby programming with OpenWatcom C/C++.)

Edited 2018-02-10 03:28 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Andre on 2018-02-10 21:47:44
But any software that uses for example a sound card running on (MS-)DOS, has to handle the interrupts created by the sound card. That's the point, MS-DOS and compatibles are so basic in nature, that almost any hardware related stuff has to be done by the application itself.

Nowadays we are used to operating systems with drivers that handles all hardware, but MS-DOS was barely doing anything more then provide access to the file system and load applications.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[6]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
By Andre on 2018-02-10 21:56:13
FAT32 was introduced in Windows 95 OSR2 (version 4.00.950B) and it's accompanying MS-DOS version 7.1

My experience with the Windows 3 series was Windows for Workgroups 3.11. This version of Windows only has the "386 Enhanced" mode, where 3.1 also had a "Standard" mode, and 3.0 even included the "Real" mode.

This "386 Enhanced" mode uses the Protected Mode to run Windows applications and the V86 mode to run MS-DOS applications. The Windows applications it supports are 16 bit Windows applications, however, one can install WIN32S to add some limited support for 32-bit Windows applications.

So, technically, Windows 3.1 is not 16-bit only.
Permalink - Score: 1

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?