Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Richards wrote:
>>> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to
>>> consume
>>> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing
>>> particular
>>> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a
>>> duck
>>> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
>>> --
>>> Jeff Richards
>>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
>>>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was
>>>> just
>>>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
>>>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT.
>>
>> That sounds correct to me too.
>>
>>>> In addition,
>>>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology ---
>>>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
>>>> underlying
>>>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have
>>>> a
>>>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating
>>>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.
>>
>> I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP,
>> there
>> is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in
>> many
>> ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands).
>>
>> BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can
>> in
>> Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x.
>>
>> Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like
>> NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level
>> access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console.
>>
>
> If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual
> boot to either Dos

You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say like
DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT
talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about the
old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through 7.1
(which came with Win98SE, as I recall)

> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
> including the XP files.

Of course.

> I know this for fact because my laptop has
> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
> with 98se.

But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no real
DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
DOS-like commands in a box, however.

 

[MEB]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e5IYA4rHJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| letterman@invalid.com wrote:
| > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co."
| > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
| >
| >> Jeff Richards wrote:
| >>> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to
| >>> consume
| >>> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing
| >>> particular
| >>> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a
| >>> duck
| >>> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
| >>> --
| >>> Jeff Richards
| >>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
| >>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
| >>>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was
| >>>> just
| >>>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that
the
| >>>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT.
| >>
| >> That sounds correct to me too.
| >>
| >>>> In addition,
| >>>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New
Technology ---
| >>>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
| >>>> underlying
| >>>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you
have
| >>>> a
| >>>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance
operating
| >>>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.
| >>
| >> I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP,
| >> there
| >> is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in
| >> many
| >> ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands).
| >>
| >> BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you
can
| >> in
| >> Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x.
| >>
| >> Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like
| >> NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low
level
| >> access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console.
| >>
| >
| > If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual
| > boot to either Dos
|
| You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say
like
| DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT
| talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about
the
| old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through
7.1
| (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
|
| > or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
| > formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
| > including the XP files.
|
| Of course.
|
| > I know this for fact because my laptop has
| > Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
| > option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
| > with 98se.
|
| But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no
real
| DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
| DOS-like commands in a box, however.
|
|

I think you could go a bit farther than that, since the roots of NT are
apparently taken from Posix/Unix.... perhaps that might help to provide the
WHY and WHERE of the two different accessing routines being used...
and all those NT based users think they aren't using Linux... I guess they
aren't TECHNICALLY, but they are using Microsoft's hacks of Unix... geeessss

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel
_ _
~~

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say like
>DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm NOT
>talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about the
>old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through 7.1
>(which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
>
I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer
the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot
floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files".
I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.

After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos
alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
>> including the XP files.
>
>Of course.
>
>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
>> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
>> with 98se.
>
>But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no real
>DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
>DOS-like commands in a box, however.
>
Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about
XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP
aggravates me. I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder
and that is all I need.

I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it,
but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and
Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw
it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:55:05 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>|
>| But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no
>real
>| DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
>| DOS-like commands in a box, however.
>|
>|
>
> I think you could go a bit farther than that, since the roots of NT are
>apparently taken from Posix/Unix.... perhaps that might help to provide the
>WHY and WHERE of the two different accessing routines being used...
>and all those NT based users think they aren't using Linux... I guess they
>aren't TECHNICALLY, but they are using Microsoft's hacks of Unix... geeessss
>
>--
>MEB

That explains a lot about why I can not stand XP. I hate Linux too.
At the same time, I loved Dos back in the old days, and while earlier
versions of windows 3.x and 9.x were poor, I have always liked Win98.
It has it's problems, but its palatable. Too bad it has been
abandoned. It could have been improved and become one hell of an OS.
Of course we all know MS is only interested in adding bloat, which
needs more powerful hardware, and thus they are kissing ass to the
hardware manufacturers. If Win98 could run on the latest fast
computers, it would likely break the sound barrier. But instead,
everytime a faster computer is designed, MS slows it back down to the
same speed the 386 computer performed in 1990.

Everytime I see a computer running XP or Vista, I ask myself what the
heck have we really gained. Then I answer myself by saying "NOTHING".
OK, given the benefit of the doubt, Win2K and up, have better control
of USB and can produce higher graphics. But is there much more?
"NO". We have only designed a system filled with useless and often
annoying bloat, which is designed for total idiots who have no means
to control their own computers.

Microsoft could have developed their "NT" based OS, AND continued to
develop the dos based Win9x. After all, Linux has reams of different
distros. Why must MS only have one choice? Are we all supposed to be
the same? Then too, I remember when I was still running Windows 3.x
and MS was offerring Windows NT at the same time. At least then,
there was the choice. At that same time there were also other
alternative GUI operating systems, such as OS2, GEM, GEOWORKS, etc.
(as well as Linux). Now in 2008 we only have two choices for the PC
computer. Whatever is the latest version of MS Windows, and Linux.
That's it. Why are there not other software developers designing
other OSs? Are we all stuck with MS only? Unless we want to struggle
with Linux, which is not made for the average homeowner or small
office. If MS is doing anything, they are forcing us to sell our PCs
and buy Macintosh computers.

I'm old enough that I will likely be able to run Win98 for the rest of
my life, for what I do on a computer. But I fel sorry for the younger
people who will have to either follow MS like sheep, or switch to the
Mac. Maybe the PC computer will soon be a relic. I know that I will
never use XP or Vista. I dont even care for the Win2k on my laptop,
but I seldom use that computer anyhow, and I can always dual boot it
to w98. I just know that I wont ever "adjust" to XP or Vista, and
likely the next OS from MS, because it will be more of the same. I am
also not willing to fight with Linux. If I do outlive Win98, and I am
forced to relearn the use of a computer, it will be a Mac. I've used
them, they are not as user friendly as Win98, but they get the job
done and dont have all the problems of the NT based windows, nor
require a person to spend years learning Linux.

Then, add to that, the fact that MS has developed XP and Up, to make
their users totally reliant on them. When MS decides to abandon XP
(and eventually Vista), they can now FORCE the users to buy a new OS,
as well as a new computer. When XP is abandoned, MS will probably no
longer offer Activation. So, after 30 days of use, our screens will
go blank, and all our data will be suspended in limbo. NO THANKS!
At least with Win98, I can continue to reinstall it whenever I get a
replacement computer, and all I have to do is enter the same product
code that came with the CD. I think it's not going to be long before
MS abandons XP, and forces all users to go to Vista. MS didn't create
their Activation process just to stop piracy, they did it more because
they can now force users to upgrade, and thus make more money from
users, as well as forcing users to continually buy new hardware and
keep relearning how to use their computer.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say
>> like
>> DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive. I'm
>> NOT
>> talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking about
>> the
>> old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0 through
>> 7.1
>> (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
>>
> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer
> the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot
> floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files".
> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.
>
> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos
> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP, right?
(You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).

> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

Same comment as above. (more below)

>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
>>> including the XP files.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
>>> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
>>> with 98se.
>>
>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no
>> real
>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
>> DOS-like commands in a box, however.
>>
> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about
> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP
> aggravates me.

I'm not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so aggravated by.
One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be
reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example; and
trust me, I did!).

Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a multiuser
capability (even though many of us don't want or need them), just like
WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances about XP are you talking
about?

> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder
> and that is all I need.
>
> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it,
> but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and
> Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw
> it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!

 

[thanatoid]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:lluld49ctum4ghi8h7ha2fvnusgmcpink8@4ax.com:

<SNIP>

Something else occurred to me. There's a program called
"Dependency Walker". It shows you what DLL's etc. your program
"depends on" to run and whether you have them, or maybe you have
the wrong version. It only works on 32 and 64 bit "modules", but
your 3.11 program MAY be a 32 bit program for 3.11 OR there
might be another program which will analyze the same things for
a 16-bit modules. But you'll have to find it yourself, unless
someone here knows.



--
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the
votes decide everything.
- Josef Stalin

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this
definitively and objectively?

> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS (say
>>> like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto that drive.
>>> I'm
>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm talking
>>> about
>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0
>>> through
>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
>>>
>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to transfer
>> the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files from the boot
>> floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for booting files".
>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.
>>
>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos
>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.

Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP, right?
(You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).

>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.

Same comment as above. (more below)

>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
>>>> including the XP files.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
>>>> option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
>>>> with 98se.
>>>
>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there is no
>>> real
>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe) that runs
>>> DOS-like commands in a box, however.
>>>
>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about
>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP
>> aggravates me.

I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so
aggravated by.
One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be
reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example; and
trust me, I did!).

Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a multiuser
capability (even though many of us don't want or need them), just like
WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances about XP are you talking
about?

>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is all I
>> need.
>>
>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix it,
>> but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98 and
>> Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could screw
>> it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots of fun!

 

[PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Bill in Co. wrote:
| Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this
| definitively and objectively?

If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one
will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving! Sounds to me
letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do that
with WinXP too. Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP
partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know
True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any
partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better not
have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a
ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP instead!
(I forget the name of it.)

|> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
|>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS
|>>> (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto
|>>> that drive. I'm
|>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm
|>>> talking about
|>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0
|>>> through
|>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
|>>>
|>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
|>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to
|>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files
|>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for
|>> booting files".
|>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
|>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.
|>>
|>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos
|>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.
|
| Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,
| right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).
|
|>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.
|
| Same comment as above. (more below)
|
|>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
|>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the
|>>>> drive, including the XP files.
|>>>
|>>> Of course.
|>>>
|>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
|>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual
|>>>> boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K,
|>>>> like I do with 98se.
|>>>
|>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there
|>>> is no real
|>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)
|>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.
|>>>
|>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about
|>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP
|>> aggravates me.
|
| I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so
| aggravated by.
| One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be
| reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;
| and trust me, I did!).
|
| Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a
| multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need
| them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances
| about XP are you talking about?
|
|>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is
|>> all I need.
|>>
|>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
|>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix
|>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98
|>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could
|>> screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots
|>> of fun!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this
>> definitively and objectively?
>
> If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one
> will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving!

LOL.

> Sounds to me
> letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do that
> with WinXP too.

I think so too.
I was just wondering what his specific and objective beef with XP was.

> Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP
> partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know
> True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any
> partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better not
> have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a
> ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP instead!
> (I forget the name of it.)

Well, I have no interest in doing it, since I'm rarely using DOS that much
now. Besides which, I already have a USB DOS Flash Drive, which I can plug
in! So I can just boot up on that, when I want!


>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
>>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed DOS
>>>>> (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it), onto
>>>>> that drive. I'm
>>>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm
>>>>> talking about
>>>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions 1.0
>>>>> through
>>>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
>>>>>
>>>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
>>>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to
>>>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files
>>>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for
>>>> booting files".
>>>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
>>>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.
>>>>
>>>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the dos
>>>> alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.
>>
>> Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,
>> right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you want).
>>
>>>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.
>>
>> Same comment as above. (more below)
>>
>>>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
>>>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the
>>>>>> drive, including the XP files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
>>>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual
>>>>>> boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K,
>>>>>> like I do with 98se.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there
>>>>> is no real
>>>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)
>>>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything about
>>>> XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything about XP
>>>> aggravates me.
>>
>> I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so
>> aggravated by.
>> One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be
>> reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;
>> and trust me, I did!).
>>
>> Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a
>> multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need
>> them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances
>> about XP are you talking about?
>>
>>>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is
>>>> all I need.
>>>>
>>>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
>>>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix
>>>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98
>>>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I could
>>>> screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can be lots
>>>> of fun!
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> Let's try this again, letterman. Are you unable to answer this
|>> definitively and objectively?
|>
|> If you only accept definitive & objective answers, Colorado-- no one
|> will ever talk to you! I can't blame letterman for leaving!
|
| LOL.

.

|> Sounds to me
|> letterman set up a dual boot with DOS & Win2K. I guess you can do
|> that with WinXP too.
|
| I think so too.
| I was just wondering what his specific and objective beef with XP was.

I'm fairly sure it has irradiated his pinky toes to a shade of purple.

|> Why not? Just be careful what you do to the XP
|> partitions & files after booting to DOS & maybe visa versa. You know
|> True DOS can kill LFNs for one thing. And, if you want to do any
|> partitioning in DOS, you know it won't see NTFS partitions-- better
|> not have any! Careful with things like that! Definitely do not try a
|> ScanReg, you know-- but use that new one someone wrote for XP
|> instead! (I forget the name of it.)
|
| Well, I have no interest in doing it, since I'm rarely using DOS that
| much now. Besides which, I already have a USB DOS Flash Drive,
| which I can plug in! So I can just boot up on that, when I want!

All right. You've got it covered. That's best. Anyhow, you can run that
new-fangled registry restore from a floppy, if necessary.

|>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
|>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0600, "Bill in Co."
|>>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>>> You CAN'T boot to real DOS unless you had previously installed
|>>>>> DOS (say like DOS 6.22), OR Win9X (which brings DOS with it),
|>>>>> onto that drive. I'm
|>>>>> NOT talking about the pseudo-DOS cmd shell in XP or NT. I'm
|>>>>> talking about
|>>>>> the old bonafide, bootable, real DOS operating system (versions
|>>>>> 1.0 through
|>>>>> 7.1 (which came with Win98SE, as I recall)
|>>>>>
|>>>> I ran Fdisk and Format from a Dos bootable floppy (With dos from
|>>>> Win98). After the hard drive was formatted, I ran SYS.COM to
|>>>> transfer the system to the HD. Then I copied all the dos files
|>>>> from the boot floppy and a second floppy with the "not needed for
|>>>> booting files".
|>>>> I created a simple autoexec.bat and config.sys, put the path to
|>>>> C:\Dos, and I had a working dos bootable HD.
|>>>>
|>>>> After that, I ran the install for Win2K, I told it to leave the
|>>>> dos alone, keep the fat 32 formatting and just install 2k.
|>>
|>> Something like that might have also been possible with Windows XP,
|>> right? (You can choose to setup and use FAT32 for WinXP, if you
|>> want).
|>>
|>>>> When I boot now, I have the menu to choose Dos or Win2K.
|>>
|>> Same comment as above. (more below)
|>>
|>>>>>> or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
|>>>>>> formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the
|>>>>>> drive, including the XP files.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Of course.
|>>>>>
|>>>>>> I know this for fact because my laptop has
|>>>>>> Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the
|>>>>>> dual boot option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix
|>>>>>> 2K, like I do with 98se.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> But this has nothing to do with my original statement, that there
|>>>>> is no real
|>>>>> DOS mode in NT or XP. There IS a command processor (cmd.exe)
|>>>>> that runs DOS-like commands in a box, however.
|>>>>>
|>>>> Yes, I tried that thing on an XP computer. As with everything
|>>>> about XP, it did little but aggravate me. However, everything
|>>>> about XP aggravates me.
|>>
|>> I'm still not sure exactly what it is about WinXP that you are so
|>> aggravated by.
|>> One of the MAJOR annoyances (that stupid default Start Menu) can be
|>> reconfigured to the classic look, just like in Win98SE, for example;
|>> and trust me, I did!).
|>>
|>> Doesn't Win2K also have those other user profiles too, for a
|>> multiuser capability (even though many of us don't want or need
|>> them), just like WinXP? So what specific differences or annoyances
|>> about XP are you talking about?
|>>
|>>>> I never tried it in Win2K. I have my real dos folder and that is
|>>>> all I need.
|>>>>
|>>>> I have always said this. When windows fails, I can always hack it
|>>>> back together, or destroy it from the Dos prompt. Normally I fix
|>>>> it, but there have been times that I intentionally installed Win98
|>>>> and Win2K on a spare HD, just to abuse it and see how badly I
|>>>> could screw it up. Swapping the names on the registry files can
|>>>> be lots of fun!
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

In message <slmmd4df8q4k6b97k8avg5leh03gnsik9v@4ax.com>,
letterman@invalid.com writes
[]
>That explains a lot about why I can not stand XP. I hate Linux too.
>At the same time, I loved Dos back in the old days, and while earlier
>versions of windows 3.x and 9.x were poor, I have always liked Win98.
>It has it's problems, but its palatable. Too bad it has been
>abandoned. It could have been improved and become one hell of an OS.

I agree - millions wouldn't (-:

>Of course we all know MS is only interested in adding bloat, which
>needs more powerful hardware, and thus they are kissing ass to the

To be fair, MS aren't purely interested in adding bloat - they want to
add more (what they consider) useful features, and usability. The fact
that this tends to make it bloat isn't deliberate as such, just an
(inevitable) side-effect.

>hardware manufacturers. If Win98 could run on the latest fast
>computers, it would likely break the sound barrier. But instead,

Why not W3.1, or DOS? (Apart from, I think, some problems with large
disc sizes, DOS _will_ run on most modern hardware.)

>everytime a faster computer is designed, MS slows it back down to the
>same speed the 386 computer performed in 1990.

Yes, it does seem to have that effect! It is partly because it is easier
to get software working without spending lots of time making it
efficient - which isn't necessary on modern hardware as it _is_ so
powerful. If the choice is between optimising the code to do the same
thing but a fraction of a second faster, and {adding features or fixing
bugs}, it's fairly clear which they will choose. Programmer time = money
and is finite; fixed bugs or extra features will attract more users than
a slight increase in performance on some tasks, whether _we_ like it or
not.
[]
>Microsoft could have developed their "NT" based OS, AND continued to
>develop the dos based Win9x. After all, Linux has reams of different

They could have, but why should they - just to satisfy a few old
diehards like us? I don't think so. ..

>distros. Why must MS only have one choice? Are we all supposed to be

Aren't all the Linuxes (Linuces?) based on a common kernel?

>the same? Then too, I remember when I was still running Windows 3.x
>and MS was offerring Windows NT at the same time. At least then,
>there was the choice. At that same time there were also other
>alternative GUI operating systems, such as OS2, GEM, GEOWORKS, etc.
>(as well as Linux). Now in 2008 we only have two choices for the PC
>computer. Whatever is the latest version of MS Windows, and Linux.

(And MAC.) Well, I believe there _are_ one or two others still around;
they just have a tiny following.
[]
>Mac. Maybe the PC computer will soon be a relic. I know that I will
>never use XP or Vista. I dont even care for the Win2k on my laptop,

I think XP has now reached a similar position to '9x.
[]
>Then, add to that, the fact that MS has developed XP and Up, to make
>their users totally reliant on them. When MS decides to abandon XP
>(and eventually Vista), they can now FORCE the users to buy a new OS,
>as well as a new computer. When XP is abandoned, MS will probably no
>longer offer Activation. So, after 30 days of use, our screens will

Yes, I'm inclined to agree on that; MS seems not to be very forthcoming
on that subject. (You'd think they would be, if only to "encourage"
Vista takeup.)

>go blank, and all our data will be suspended in limbo. NO THANKS!

No, unless some very complex encryption is involved, the data _is_ still
accessible.

>At least with Win98, I can continue to reinstall it whenever I get a
>replacement computer, and all I have to do is enter the same product
>code that came with the CD. I think it's not going to be long before

You are taking it off the old one, I take it ... (-:

>MS abandons XP, and forces all users to go to Vista. MS didn't create
>their Activation process just to stop piracy, they did it more because
>they can now force users to upgrade, and thus make more money from
>users, as well as forcing users to continually buy new hardware and
>keep relearning how to use their computer.
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"Bollocks," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.

 

[Jeff Richards]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

A memory error message is not going to be associated with a missing
runtime - the missing runtime is detected during load, before the program
starts, and the message is quite precise.

What was the result when you tried it with memory restricted to 64Mb?
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lluld49ctum4ghi8h7ha2fvnusgmcpink8@4ax.com...
> snip <
>
> I'm reading this and still following the thread since I have not
> gotten the program to work.
>
> I have VBRUN100.DLL 200 and 300. All are in the Windows/System
> folder. I'll copy them to the Windows folder and give it a try. I do
> recall having to install them in Win3.x, and I probably copied them to
> Win98 for other older software. I'll see if that helps.
>
> Thanks for the help.
> LM

 

[st]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

<letterman@invalid.com> hath written: news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...

>I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.


Your best chance is installing WWG in Virtual PC. There are S3 video drivers available.
BTW, 'Out of Memory' in 98% is caused by failing some (possibly undocumented) API call due to various implementations in WWG and Win98. Just back in '92 memory was the cause of most function failures.
And finally, what's your program name? Maybe there's known compatibility issue described in Win98 help.

 

[Dan]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

<snip>

It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity of the
individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope letterman is
happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.

 

[PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Dan wrote:
| <snip>
|
| It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity
| of the individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope
| letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.

I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I
might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Dan]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Thanks PCR and I do hope letterman will post in Windows 98 General in the
future.

"PCR" wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> | <snip>
> |
> | It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the diversity
> | of the individuals within the Windows 98 General Newsgroup. I hope
> | letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows 2000.
>
> I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I
> might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
>
>

 

[PCR]

Re: Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Dan wrote:
| Thanks PCR and I do hope letterman will post in Windows 98 General in
| the future.

Me too.

| "PCR" wrote:
|
|> Dan wrote:
|> | <snip>
|> |
|> | It is indeed too bad that letterman has left. I enjoy the
|> | diversity of the individuals within the Windows 98 General
|> | Newsgroup. I hope letterman is happy with using DOS and Windows
|> | 2000.
|>
|> I don't recall that he has entirely left all of Win98. Otherwise, I
|> might agree with you. It is good of you to wish everyone well.
|>
|>
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net