Hi again,    :-)

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ralf A. Quint <free...@gmx.net> wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
>> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
>> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in court),
>> >
>> > Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in
>> > the first place...
>>I don't know all the details, barely any actually.
> So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\

It's not rumors. It's well known (at least to me) that Matthias Paul
has done a lot over the years, and he's added a lot of info to various
Wikipedia articles:


Gross also hired Andrew Schulman (who had been, with Geoff Chappell,
instrumental in identifying the AARD code in 1992) to work as a
consultant and, in Andover, join Paul in his work on "WinGlue", a
secret project to create a version of DR-DOS compatible with Windows
95, 98 and 98 SE and replace its MS-DOS 7.xx component.[17] This was
demonstrated at CeBIT in March 1998,[17] and later, in a small team,
developed into "WinBolt", both versions of DR-DOS, which remained
unreleased as of 2011, but played an important role in the court

So it's WinGlue I was thinking of, I suppose. Again, you'd have to ask
the relevant dudes, not me, for more details. But this particular info
is not public knowledge as no public code examples have shown up

>>I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong.
>>DOS was not just a glorified boot loader here, it was way more
>>interwoven and a hard requirement for this particular OS. You really
>>couldn't (AFAICT) run Win95 without DOS, at least without rewriting
>>the whole thing. But that's beyond my understanding, so you'd have to
>>ask someone more technically inclined (Geoff Chappell ??).
> May I suggest a closer study of works like "Windows 95 Internals" by
> Michael Podanoffsky (out of print though according to Amazon, ) or
> any other in-depth document about Win32?

For someone interested, sure, that would be great. To me, it's a bit
moot as I don't care enough to buy the book just for that. (I actually
hate buying books, but a few months I did go ahead and finally get
Pat's book out of "completeness", even though I have no intention of
hacking on the kernel).

> Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the
> "16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all
> necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two
> discrete entities...

16-bit real mode and 16-bit pmode and 32-bit pmode are all heavily
different things, disregarding PAE and all the various additional
changes over the years. So yes, it's going to be somewhat different,
even under V86, per design. Win 3.0 was the big change with DPMI,
which was the underlying basis for Win16 protected mode apps. Win 3.1
wouldn't even run on anything older than a 286, and VCPI was only
supported in 286 "standard" mode. With Win 3.11, they went 386+, so of
course, tack on Win32s, and you're halfway to Win95 already.

I know you know this, and I don't claim to perfectly understand it,
just saying ... yes, there's a lot going on, but DOS is still there
for good reason, both technically and for compatibility, at least
until the 32-bit NT was extended to target home users with WinXP.

Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to