Post by: Cathesdus on September 06, 2004, 12:33:00 PM
I found some old windows 3.1 disks lying around my house and was wondering if I could just take the files and stick them in a folder on my Xbox and then use a dos emu to run windows 3.1. Here are some questions though that I have about this:
1)Xbox uses fatx file format. Will Windows 3.1 support this even through the dos Emulator?
2)Can this cause any permanent damage? I mean by just booting it, not by like goin into format options and screwing it up myself.
Post by: m.e on September 08, 2004, 12:04:00 PM
This post has been edited by m.e: Sep 8 2004, 07:05 PM
Post by: GoukiX on September 11, 2004, 07:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (Cathesdus @ Sep 6 2004, 09:44 PM) |
| Thanks for at least reading my post. Here's what I'm thinking: I found some old windows 3.1 disks lying around my house and was wondering if I could just take the files and stick them in a folder on my Xbox and then use a dos emu to run windows 3.1. Here are some questions though that I have about this: 1)Xbox uses fatx file format. Will Windows 3.1 support this even through the dos Emulator? 2)Can this cause any permanent damage? I mean by just booting it, not by like goin into format options and screwing it up myself. |
why dont you try it and post up what happens :)
Post by: iT3rr0r on September 13, 2004, 10:41:00 AM
Post by: vicviper74 on September 14, 2004, 09:10:00 AM
Post by: Scan-C on September 15, 2004, 05:58:00 AM
Post by: Sgt_Grim_Reaper on September 19, 2004, 10:42:00 AM
Post by: Cathesdus on September 22, 2004, 07:07:00 AM
I put the files on the Xbox, use dosxbox to navigate into the folder and if you know anything about windows 3.11, I typed win to start it up. It loads up the nice rectangular green Windows 3.11 for workgroups logo and a nice big M$ colorful flying "window" but 3 seconds later it gives me an error about how a device could not be found and I'm booted back to the dos prompt. I would love to try doing this in Bochs but I just recently killed my USB keyboard so now I have to buy another.
Post by: Sgt_Grim_Reaper on October 10, 2004, 11:51:00 AM
Post by: Cathesdus on October 13, 2004, 01:04:00 PM
Post by: Banquo on October 16, 2004, 01:03:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| but just like 95, 3.11 is nothing more than a DOS application |
Windows 95 is not a DOS application and is nothing like 3.1; once loaded it takes over management of your hardware completely and is a true operating system.
Post by: BlueCELL on October 17, 2004, 06:31:00 PM
Post by: Banquo on October 17, 2004, 09:31:00 PM
Windows 95 is an operating system. :)
This post has been edited by Banquo: Oct 18 2004, 04:35 AM
Post by: Pyro0623 on November 06, 2004, 11:45:00 PM
Step 1, Put a windows 95 CD in your drive and Try to boot from it.
Step 2, Take a look in your autoexec.bat and config.sys in your root of your startup drive, notice all the dos code?
Step 3, Go to the "Exit windows" command, notic how you are slapped in the face with a big "Sack-o-Dos"
The point i am getting at is, Windows 95 is just a glorified version of dos with some bells and whistles added to it.....
This post has been edited by Pyro0623: Nov 7 2004, 07:48 AM
Post by: guyin916 on December 06, 2004, 03:24:00 AM
| QUOTE (Pyro0623 @ Nov 7 2004, 09:56 AM) |
| Ummm, Not trying to be rude or anything But Win 95 Is a "16 bit" OS, And Is Dos Dependant, That's why When it boots it does all that dos crap and startup scripts. Step 1, Put a windows 95 CD in your drive and Try to boot from it. Step 2, Take a look in your autoexec.bat and config.sys in your root of your startup drive, notice all the dos code? Step 3, Go to the "Exit windows" command, notic how you are slapped in the face with a big "Sack-o-Dos" The point i am getting at is, Windows 95 is just a glorified version of dos with some bells and whistles added to it..... |
ignorant and/or close minded individuals, i swear i...
Post by: hybridstorm on December 06, 2004, 02:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (Banquo @ Oct 18 2004, 06:42 AM) |
| Windows 95 is as much an operating system as Windows 98 is; there isn't that much of a difference between them as far as the kernel. They both use a DOS based loader that gets the OS up and running; but once io.sys loads Windows 95 the 32-bit kernel takes over completely. A DOS layer does remain loaded for compatility with old programs, but Windows itself is managing your hardware resources, drivers, etc. Windows 1.01 to 3.11 are just glorified file managers; 16-bit graphical shell programs running in DOS. There's no comparison between them and 95. Windows 95 is an operating system. :) |
He is correct.
Win95 is a 32 bit OS. It is loaded by dos but the kernel takes over the dos functions. You must have dos to run windows 95 since dos gets windows 95 "started off."
edit: typo
This post has been edited by hybridstorm: Dec 6 2004, 10:23 PM
Post by: Sgt_Grim_Reaper on December 26, 2005, 03:22:00 PM
QUOTE(Cathesdus @ Oct 13 2004, 09:19 PM) 
That's manually downloading drivers and putting them in a folder, not loading them into ram for use with an operating system.
No wonder, you mis-interpreted the "Myth". It means Non-plug-and-play. Jeez. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
Post by: Karlos The Jackal on March 16, 2006, 03:12:00 AM
Windows 3.1, 95A, 95B & 98 all run from dos.
3.1 & 95A you had to type win to start it, when 95B was released they droped having to type win, but it still was a dos OS, This didnt change till 98se when it became a full indpendent OS. But still 98SE did have to use DOS for certain commands.
The only Windows Line of OS which doesnt have dos loaded into the background is the NT family (NT 4.0 and above, ive never used below NT 4.0 so i cant comment on that).
Hope that clears the air a liltle bit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Post by: torne on March 17, 2006, 04:01:00 AM
QUOTE(Karlos The Jackal @ Mar 16 2006, 11:27 AM)
Windows 3.1, 95A, 95B & 98 all run from dos.
3.1 & 95A you had to type win to start it, when 95B was released they droped having to type win, but it still was a dos OS, This didnt change till 98se when it became a full indpendent OS. But still 98SE did have to use DOS for certain commands.
This isn't any more true than when the previous people in the thread said it was. All consumer Windows OSes starting with the very first release of 95 (which is not 95A, 95A is the second) only use DOS as a bootloader environment. The consumer Windows kernel replaces all DOS interrupt vector services (which is the only kind of OS service that DOS really provides). Consumer Windows is pretty stupid as 32-bit OSes go, but it is a real standalone OS nonetheless. There weren't many significant changes to the kernel design at any point - even Windows ME's kernel has the same fundamental architecture as 95.
Running DOS apps inside consumer Windows is accomplished with virtual 8086 mode, a hilariously bizarre set of trickery you can do to the 80386 and above which makes it appear to have returned to real mode, but still allows certain interrupts to be handled by returning to protected mode, which allows the 32-bit OS to regain control to handle device driver interrupts, timers, etc and to allow preemption away from real-mode apps using the timer interrupt. A modified DOS environment runs inside virtual 8086 mode, which implements some DOS interrupt vector services directly, and implements others by using cunning trickery to temporarily return to protected mode and get Windows to do them for it (like displaying things on the screen when in windowed mode). The same virtual 8086 mode is used to run DOS applications in NT-based OSes.
All this is extensively documented in published MS documentation, though many books about Consumer Windows' internals are out of print these days (nobody cares any more). It's not really subject to debate :-)