On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dual booted 98SE and 2K, but abandoned that when I went to a GB of RAM
> in the box, because 98SE refused to boot if it saw more than 512MB.
> (There turn out to be ways around that, but I had Win2K to the point
> where I simply didn't *need* Win98 anymore, so it went away.)

Yes, workarounds exist, something to do with cache size or whatever,
search BTTR's forum.


Like I said, Win2k / XP aren't that bad, though they have quite a few
catches and omissions. It gets worse later on, but it depends on
whether you think the tradeoff is worth it (or have the time,
patience, knowledge, desire to bother trying to install older stuff
and accept incomplete functionality).

> I din't care about DOS compatibility - the DOS stuff I used all ran
> fine in an NTVDM.

Trust me, it's not as perfect as it seems, though yes, for what it
does, it does fairly well.

> Like I said elsewhere, it ran all the DOS stuff *I* used with no
> problem so I essentially didn't *care*.

That's more of a coincidence (or your minimal needs) than a true
testament to compatibility. Simply put, most people "didn't care"
anymore or preferred heavier APIs, but having an incomplete /
half-broken subsystem doesn't help them stay firm either.

Granted, perhaps DOS native binaries aren't the easiest or greatest
things to lug around for ages, but I don't know of a true "universal"
solution. Scripts? (Lua?) Bytecode? (Inferno?) We probably shouldn't
have separate binaries for every single x86 OS, but for some people,
source compatibility is "good enough". Too bad they make so many
horrible assumptions in the process.

Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to