[HN Gopher] Ex-Caldera dev describes lost "WinBolt" Win9x-capabl...
___________________________________________________________________
Ex-Caldera dev describes lost "WinBolt" Win9x-capable version of
DR-DOS (2007)
Author : Lammy
Score : 84 points
Date : 2021-08-30 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (msfn.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (msfn.org)
| karmakaze wrote:
| > Actually, there is a reason why I am writing this on a dual-
| core machine in a Windows 98 SE window... ;-)
|
| Nice. Win 98 SE isn't all that old (roughly the same Win32 API
| that evolved into Windows 10) but it does still evoke that
| retrocomputing vibe.
|
| Has me wondering if there's another system that I could still use
| along similar lines. Needing internet and a web browser certainly
| narrows down the list fast. I don't know that the Commander X-16
| could do it, though not an actual retro OS. Or perhaps Mac System
| 7.
| guessbest wrote:
| Windows 98 SE was not only quite fast but also very stable. I
| preferred it greatly to Windows 2k. There were unfortunately
| nothing to be gained in Windows ME so that's why some people
| were still running it in 2007 such as at the link. Speed wise
| Windows 2k and Linux were comparable in speed and stability in
| 2003 on the 90's pentium machines, but Windows 98 SE was
| blazing fast.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Yep Win98 SE was a local maxima for performance/stability.
| For the WinNT line, I used 3.51 for as long as I could,
| before giving in to Win2k and later for laptop support.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Surely this is old enough now that they could surface the fork on
| an OS / DOS enthusiast site, the same thing for Apple Star Trek
| (also on DRDOS).
| runjake wrote:
| > the same thing for Apple Star Trek (also on DRDOS)
|
| Huh! I was unaware that Project Star Trek sat upon DR-DOS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project#Architecture
| karmakaze wrote:
| Fascinating. Gives extra context/colour to DR-GEM running on
| TOS, and later ties of codenames Borg (OS/2 2.1) and Ferengi
| (OS/2 for Windows).
| alerighi wrote:
| I don't get why you would really want to run Windows 9x with
| another DOS. It was only used as a bootloader, when Windows
| started of course the Windows kernel would get full control of
| the system, leaving MS-DOS only resident for compatibility with
| legacy software, and nothing mode.
|
| What difference could it make to run a better version of DOS on
| Windows 9x machines?
| jchw wrote:
| Windows 9x actually _does_ use MS-DOS for more than just a
| bootloader. The post describes it in better detail than I
| actually understand, but they do also briefly list the
| advantages in the second line of the post from the link, too:
|
| > Yes, it is possible to run Windows 9x ontop of DR-DOS. And
| yes, it has several advantages over using MS-DOS (f.e. smaller
| memory footprint and much more advanced relocation methods, not
| only resulting in more free DOS memory, but also in more free
| Windows resources; better configurability and therefore higher
| flexibility, more advanced utilities).
| agumonkey wrote:
| https://archive.is/nVHPi
|
| the only mention of lost is "lost hope" .. I'm not sure he lost
| the source, or maybe I misread.
| chungy wrote:
| > No, as Microsoft has artificially tied MS-DOS 7.xx and Windows
| 4.xx together and it is not trivial to pry these components
| apart.
|
| This is a half-truth, due to the word "artificially" -- it
| implies nefarious intent by Microsoft to not let you run Windows
| 9x on just any old DOS. Microsoft determined with Windows 95 that
| Windows would be their primary operating system, and while it was
| still architecturally similar to the older 1.x-3.x versions that
| would install and run on top of MS-DOS (including various
| versions of which), that both components would be improved by
| developing them together. The original Windows 95's version of
| MS-DOS ("7.0") added support for logical block addressing and
| long file names in FAT. The second one in 95B ("MS-DOS 7.1")
| added support for FAT32. The Windows Me version ("MS-DOS 8.0")...
| well ok I don't really know of any practical changes aside from
| no longer parsing config.sys/autoexec.bat.
|
| Still there were obvious compatibility and practical advantages
| to developing them in tandem. Massive improvements in the file
| system were feasible in the era that 2GB and larger disks started
| appearing on the market, simplified boot process as it was
| assumed that Windows would always be expected, some data
| structures could be rearranged or axed in order to allow Windows
| itself to manage resources.
| laumars wrote:
| It's not as clear cut as that. There was a non-Microsoft DOS
| (might have been Dr DOS but I can't recall specifically) that
| would boot Windows 95. Then Microsoft released an update that
| caused Windows 95 to fail with an vague error message intending
| to deceive users into thinking there was a technical limitation
| in other DOSs that prevented Windows from booting. Yet it was
| later proved that limitation didn't exist and all Windows was
| doing was checking if it was MS-DOS, and if not returning an
| error.
|
| If I recall correctly this case even went to court.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| fredoralive wrote:
| That sounds like the beta of Windows 3.1 and the AARD code,
| which is most definitely in the "dirty tricks" column for
| Microsoft.
| laumars wrote:
| Ah yes it was. Sorry about that.
| Lammy wrote:
| > it implies nefarious intent by Microsoft to not let you run
| Windows 9x on just any old DOS
|
| Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code#Memos
| dblohm7 wrote:
| That was not for Windows 9x.
| Lammy wrote:
| Ah yeah, my bad, I guess it's just coincidence how the CEO,
| Co-President, and SVPs explicitly stated they didn't want
| Windows to be able to run on any non-Microsoft DOS and then
| the next major version of Windows wasn't able to be
| "integrated" with any non-Microsoft DOS.
|
| Also total coincidence how the same strategy played out
| with their web browser a couple years later
| http://toastytech.com/evil/fof.html :)
| fredoralive wrote:
| There is also an elephant in the room with all these questions
| about the messy interactions between Windows 9x and DOS -
| Windows NT. By 1995 Microsoft's long view of the future of the
| PC OS did not involve DOS. Even before NT we had OS/2 as well.
|
| If Microsoft had been "nicer" they could have made it easier
| for DR to use their DOS to load a GUI that mostly acted as its
| own OS and bypassed DOS once loaded, but what happens once they
| get to XP?
|
| (Of course DR / Novell kinda knew this hence stuff like Star
| Trek, but whatever DR's vision of the future was never came).
| dblohm7 wrote:
| I agree. Windows 9x's reliance on internal MS-DOS data
| structures was not done for "artificial" reasons:
|
| https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/?p=24063
| dmead wrote:
| This does not seem like a reliable source about Microsoft's
| actions in the 90s. What are they gonna do? Blog about how
| they're guilty of anticompetitive behavior?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I don't remember Raymond Chen ever lying. If there weren't
| legitimate reasons, Raymond would just not talk about them.
| Especially since this would be a very elaborate, multi-
| faceted lie that anybody with an intermediate knowledge of
| the inner workings of Windows 9x would've been able to call
| out.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| Raymond Chen may not intentionally lie, but he can be
| wrong and has been wrong in the past. One obvious example
| that I remember is when he said that the reason
| Pinball.exe disappeared from Windows Vista was because
| they couldn't port it to 64 bits. And yet as I read every
| single clickbait newssite parrot what he was saying, I
| was literally playing 64-bit Pinball.exe on a standard
| Windows XP x64 edition ...
|
| The comments in his blog disappear every time Microsoft
| shuffles it around, so these discussions are lost
| forever.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Not lost, for now: <http://bytepointer.com/resources/old_
| new_thing/index.htm>. (Thankfully, MSDN blog comments
| didn't require JavaScript, or they _would_ now be
| lost...) Here's the Pinball piece, for example: <http://
| bytepointer.com/resources/old_new_thing/20121218_294_...>
| .
| dmead wrote:
| I guess I'm expecting lies of omission here. My guess is
| that content on Microsoft's blogs, especially about this
| period is cleared with legal before anything goes up.
| temac wrote:
| Not much in there require the DOS version to be _precisely_
| MS-DOS; on the contrary it was done mainly for compat with
| 3rd party code which e.g. "knew" where the DOS structures
| were, and surprise 3rd party DOS obviously had to be
| compatible on those points.
|
| Now remains the "suck the brains out" problem, and although
| it could have been easily solved cooperatively IMO, it is
| illustrative of why people would not have _needed_ 3rd party
| DOS when Windows 9x was running anyway: the kernel did
| nothing, the libs were mostly irrelevant (and MS-DOS probably
| gave that small compat edge even there, simply because its
| prevalence even before 9x), and the cmd line tools, well a)
| who cares about the tools b) actually if you do I suppose
| that was the easiest things to run (and if not: the irony; oh
| it is scandalous that windows relies on internals of MSDOS --
| but not that e.g. Caldera DOS tools relies on internals of
| their DOS kernel)?
|
| Caldera would have needed a Windows clone to compete. DOS was
| just becoming irrelevant.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-30 23:00 UTC)