XP Pro and DOS..

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by The GHOST of WOGER., Jul 4, 2004.

  1. I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    Pro..?


    I thought did not support DOS..
     
    The GHOST of WOGER., Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Gurble Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:44:23 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    >Pro..?
    >
    >
    >I thought did not support DOS..
    >

    XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.

    Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.
     
    Gurble, Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Steve Guest

    Gurble wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:44:23 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    >>Pro..?
    >>
    >>
    >>I thought did not support DOS..
    >>

    >
    > XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    > DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.
    >
    > Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.

    ....beat me to it! I was going to mention the Unix programs I run iunder
    XP.. using cygwin.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Jul 4, 2004
    #3
  4. The GHOST of WOGER.

    John Potter Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:47:49 +1200, Gurble <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:44:23 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    >>Pro..?
    >>
    >>I thought did not support DOS..
    >>

    >XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    >DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.
    >
    >Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.


    I use Paradox 3.5 (c. 1992, pre mouse, pre web) on a P4, XP Home.
    Goes like a rocket, I put half second delays in some of the code so it
    feels right, otherwise I wonder if it's actually done anything, the
    screen doesn't even blink. The black spot is memory management. Pdox
    3.5 had its own memory manager, revolutionary in its day but
    incompatible with even windows 3.11, so I'm limited to 640k. Another
    problem can be programs called in sequence from batch files if the
    batch is expecting programs to execute in sequence, ie not multi
    tasked as windows does.

    I use Pdox to write web indexes, which are just text files. Pdox will
    write text files and I can still use the latest css and javascript.

    It was nice of microsoft to do the emulator, I don't think they're as
    bad as some people make out. They could easily have said to people
    like me you're 12 years out of date, piss off.

    John
     
    John Potter, Jul 4, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <cc8kbj$3u6$>, d says...
    > Gurble wrote:
    > > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:44:23 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    > >>Pro..?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>I thought did not support DOS..
    > >>

    > >
    > > XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    > > DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.
    > >
    > > Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.

    > ...beat me to it! I was going to mention the Unix programs I run iunder
    > XP.. using cygwin.


    These are Unix applications compiled using Cygwin development environment
    on a Win32 platform. One might say they are a windows port of an existing
    application.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 4, 2004
    #5
  6. The GHOST of WOGER.

    John Potter Guest

    Thanks Roger. I'm pretty much ok at present but I'll keep note of
    that.

    John

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:56:48 -0700, Roger_Nickel
    <> wrote:

    >John Potter wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:47:49 +1200, Gurble <> wrote:
    >>>>I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    >>>>Pro..?
    >>>>
    >>>>I thought did not support DOS..
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    >>>DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.
    >>>
    >>>Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.

    >>
    >>
    >> I use Paradox 3.5 (c. 1992, pre mouse, pre web) on a P4, XP Home.
    >> Goes like a rocket, I put half second delays in some of the code so it
    >> feels right, otherwise I wonder if it's actually done anything, the
    >> screen doesn't even blink. The black spot is memory management. Pdox
    >> 3.5 had its own memory manager, revolutionary in its day but
    >> incompatible with even windows 3.11, so I'm limited to 640k. Another
    >> problem can be programs called in sequence from batch files if the
    >> batch is expecting programs to execute in sequence, ie not multi
    >> tasked as windows does.

    >
    >You could try it with Dosbox. I managed to get System Shock 1 running
    >under this but only at about 2 FPS :{ . SS1 has a built in memory
    >manager which refuses to run under any version of winNT.
     
    John Potter, Jul 4, 2004
    #6
  7. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:08:40 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > These are Unix applications compiled using Cygwin development environment
    > on a Win32 platform. One might say they are a windows port of an existing
    > application.


    one might say many things about you, Dunford.

    Clued-up is not one of them!


    Divine

    --
    /'_/)
    ,/_ /
    / /
    /'_'/' '/'__'7,
    /'/ / / /" /_\
    ('( ' Yo,' _~/' ')
    \ Fool ! ' /
    '\' _.7'
    \ (
    \ \
     
    Divine, Jul 4, 2004
    #7
  8. The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > I have a friend


    judo snip

    quit telling lies Roger

    :)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Divine wrote:
    > one might say many things about you, Dunford.
    > Clued-up is not one of them!


    heh, pot-kettle-black
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 5, 2004
    #9
  10. The GHOST of WOGER.

    theseus Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Divine wrote:
    >> one might say many things about you, Dunford.
    >> Clued-up is not one of them!

    >
    > heh, pot-kettle-black


    <snigger>
     
    theseus, Jul 5, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <pan.2004.07.04.11.39.44.190055@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:08:40 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > These are Unix applications compiled using Cygwin development environment
    > > on a Win32 platform. One might say they are a windows port of an existing
    > > application.

    >
    > one might say many things about you, Dunford.
    >
    > Clued-up is not one of them!


    Do you run any cygwin apps on that Windows 98 box of yours, David?

    I run cdrtools under cygwin, you can't just install the dll and any linux
    apps, you have to download the special win32 port of cdrtools.

    http://www.cygwin.com/

    What Is Cygwin?
    # Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows. It consists of two
    parts: A DLL (cygwin1.dll) which acts as a Linux emulation layer
    providing substantial Linux API functionality.
    # A collection of tools, which provide Linux look and feel.

    The Cygwin DLL works with all non-beta, non "release candidate", ix86 32
    bit versions of Windows since Windows 95, with the exception of Windows
    CE.

    What Isn't Cygwin?
    # Cygwin is not a way to run native linux apps on Windows. You have to
    rebuild your application from source if you want to get it running on
    Windows.

    =========================
    So...you have to recompile your apps using the CDE if you want to run
    them on Windows using cygwin1.dll. At the very minimum I would guess that
    cygwin's libraries provide LoadLibrary calls from the Win32 API to load
    the DLL. I haven't tried to see if cdrtools runs from straight Dos,
    without Windows. But at a guess, I'd say from the restriction noted above
    (Win95 or later) that it probably doesn't.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 5, 2004
    #11
  12. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    John Potter wrote:

    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:47:49 +1200, Gurble <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:44:23 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have a friend that he reckons that he is running a DOS program under XP
    >>>Pro..?
    >>>
    >>>I thought did not support DOS..
    >>>

    >>
    >>XP Pro does not "natively" support DOS (ie XP is not written on top of
    >>DOS), however it does have a DOS *emulator*.
    >>
    >>Most DOS applications do work. Not all, however.

    >
    >
    > I use Paradox 3.5 (c. 1992, pre mouse, pre web) on a P4, XP Home.
    > Goes like a rocket, I put half second delays in some of the code so it
    > feels right, otherwise I wonder if it's actually done anything, the
    > screen doesn't even blink. The black spot is memory management. Pdox
    > 3.5 had its own memory manager, revolutionary in its day but
    > incompatible with even windows 3.11, so I'm limited to 640k. Another
    > problem can be programs called in sequence from batch files if the
    > batch is expecting programs to execute in sequence, ie not multi
    > tasked as windows does.


    You could try it with Dosbox. I managed to get System Shock 1 running
    under this but only at about 2 FPS :{ . SS1 has a built in memory
    manager which refuses to run under any version of winNT.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Jul 5, 2004
    #12
  13. The GHOST of WOGER.

    AD. Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:39:45 +1200, Divine wrote:

    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:08:40 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    >> These are Unix applications compiled using Cygwin development
    >> environment on a Win32 platform. One might say they are a windows port
    >> of an existing application.

    >
    > one might say many things about you, Dunford.
    >
    > Clued-up is not one of them!


    Ummm doesn't cygwin convert POSIX system calls to their win32 equivalents?

    Cygwin isn't a separate subsystem like Interix is, cygwin sits on top of
    win32.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 5, 2004
    #13
  14. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:59:19 +1200, John Potter wrote:

    > I use Paradox 3.5 (c. 1992, pre mouse, pre web)


    The web was around in 1992, but not as we know it.

    The mouse was in existence long before 1992.

    http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story044.htm as an example

    In both cases they were hard to find.
     
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:39:45 +1200, Divine wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 23:08:40 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >
    > >> These are Unix applications compiled using Cygwin development
    > >> environment on a Win32 platform. One might say they are a windows port
    > >> of an existing application.

    > >
    > > one might say many things about you, Dunford.
    > >
    > > Clued-up is not one of them!

    >
    > Ummm doesn't cygwin convert POSIX system calls to their win32 equivalents?
    >
    > Cygwin isn't a separate subsystem like Interix is, cygwin sits on top of
    > win32.


    Any app that runs under Cygwin must be recompiled using the Cygwin DE
    (presumably their API libraries).
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 5, 2004
    #15
  16. The GHOST of WOGER.

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:32:50 +1200, Gordon wrote:

    > The mouse was in existence long before 1992.
    >
    > http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story044.htm as an example
    >
    > In both cases they were hard to find.


    A mouse hard to find before 1992? Surely you jest :)

    Or are we talking IBM PCs only? Even so....

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 5, 2004
    #16
  17. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:47:59 +1200, AD. wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:32:50 +1200, Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> The mouse was in existence long before 1992.
    >>
    >> http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story044.htm as an example
    >>
    >> In both cases they were hard to find.

    >
    > A mouse hard to find before 1992? Surely you jest :)
    >
    > Or are we talking IBM PCs only? Even so....
    >

    Tounge in cheek
     
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2004
    #17
  18. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Divine Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:47:43 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >> one might say many things about you, Dunford. Clued-up is not one of
    >> them!

    >
    > heh, pot-kettle-black


    Dunford is a nasty little fuckwit Fundamentalist.

    Do you want me to say that a little clearer for you?


    Divine

    --
    "What some people have against Open Source Software is what Fundamentalist
    Christians or Moslems have against Knowledge."
     
    Divine, Jul 5, 2004
    #18
  19. Divine wrote:
    >>>one might say many things about you, Dunford. Clued-up is not one of
    >>>them!

    >>heh, pot-kettle-black


    > Dunford is a nasty little fuckwit Fundamentalist.
    > Do you want me to say that a little clearer for you?


    nah thats pretty clear, but some may say the same things about you, that
    you said about him(regarding the clued up bit)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 5, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <pan.2004.07.05.16.17.26.679162@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:47:43 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    > >> one might say many things about you, Dunford. Clued-up is not one of
    > >> them!

    > >
    > > heh, pot-kettle-black

    >
    > Dunford is a nasty little fuckwit Fundamentalist.
    >
    > Do you want me to say that a little clearer for you?


    Can you tell me what this has to do with porting Linux applications to
    Windows using the Cygwin Development Environment?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 6, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Primo Canero

    MS DOS on WinXP pro

    Primo Canero, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    5,054
    Oldus Fartus
    Feb 4, 2004
  2. Don
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,132
    °Mike°
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. mike jones

    Running DOS with XP PRO???

    mike jones, Dec 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    418
    Lady Chatterly
    Dec 18, 2004
  4. Igor Mamuziæ

    IOS DoS defense causes DoS to itself:)

    Igor Mamuziæ, May 12, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    587
    Igor Mamuzic
    May 20, 2006
  5. Abert
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    435
    Abert
    Dec 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page