Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 13:46 +0100, Liam Proven wrote: *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( There is a /reason/ why people dropped Windows 3 like a hot potato once they had a better alternative! To be honest, Windows 9x or NT 3 are far more interesting retro OSs to play with now, which can do vastly more. The 32-bit transition was /long/ overdue. Well, yes people needed more resources to do more things. But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. It is a long-dead OS. I really don't think there is such a need, no. The fact that there are some usable VESA drivers is enough, I think. If that was a long time ago, dare I hope you might have some sample sources for me to look at? I still want to write graphic device drivers for WFWG. I installed and supported many many such machines, but I was never a developer, so no, I have no sources, I'm afraid. My sources of information, as a sysadmin, were magazines, not the Internet back then. I was online, but there was no Web yet, so really it was just email Usenet. Usenet is still there Google has the archives. :¬) OK, fair enough I'm sure there's more than enough information to write one. Thanks. If you want to get a feel for Win3-era Windows on a big desktop, use NT3. NT 3.51 was the last and best version was a very good OS in its way. It was fast, stable, lean efficient, it supported whacking great screens without issues, it ran most Win3 apps, it had a network stack TCP/IP support out of the box, supported VFAT with LFNs and NTFS and OS/2's HPFS, and was generally a pleasure to work with. You could run Netscape 4 32-bit on it, too, for a pretty good Internet Web experience - for 1995. I seem to remember there was once a port of NT 3.51 for Sun UltraSparcs. :) An unofficial one which I think was never commercially released. Officially, NT ran on MIPS, Alpha and later (and briefly) PowerPC as well as x86-32. I think I'll cut my teeth on writing graphic drivers on NT 3.51. I need to learn how to write them, for fun :) Now, it is x86-32, x86-64 and IA64, but soon, IA64 will be dropped and I suspect x86-32 will follow before too long. On the other hand, there are consistent rumours about an ARM port, which I find hard to believe but would be interesting... I think Intel had a hand in that, it ensures a monopoly. It would have been a different world if Microsoft had succeeded in porting to all sorts of architectures (and far less bugs IMHO). Now we have Linux and its success in finding its way into most 32bit platforms. There is an ARM port, it's called WINCE. :) -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 14:22 +0100, Liam Proven wrote Windows 3.1x for high resolution displays i.e. beyond 1280x1024 with 16 million colours. Sadly I've had to abandon it due to lack of documentation and sources for existing device drivers. One problem with such things - and a few did exist, back in the day - was Windows 3's resource limitations. It had a few 64K heaps for holding Windows Resources, which includes icons, window decorations (widgets) and internal data structures. The bigger the display, the more resources needed; also, the higher the colour depth, the more resources. *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. Result, on 1280x1024 in 16M colours, after displaying the desktop opening Program Manager, there sometimes wasn't enough memory left to open any apps at all. So, really, from someone who was there and had to support the damned thing, 17-18Y ago: you're not missing much. It looked impressive but it was sod-all use. If that was a long time ago, dare I hope you might have some sample sources for me to look at? I still want to write graphic device drivers for WFWG. If you want to get a feel for Win3-era Windows on a big desktop, use NT3. NT 3.51 was the last and best version was a very good OS in its way. It was fast, stable, lean efficient, it supported whacking great screens without issues, it ran most Win3 apps, it had a network stack TCP/IP support out of the box, supported VFAT with LFNs and NTFS and OS/2's HPFS, and was generally a pleasure to work with. You could run Netscape 4 32-bit on it, too, for a pretty good Internet Web experience - for 1995. I seem to remember there was once a port of NT 3.51 for Sun UltraSparcs. :) But of course it doesn't run on DOS. Indeed not. -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 19:06 +0100, Sol-Terrasa mkfs ext4 da' Sussex wrote: P.S. *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. And possibly the next step is writing them for NT as well. -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Who needs WIndows?
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 19:37 -0800, Michael Robinson wrote: I have been interested in ReactOS, but as of today I gt my forum posting priviledges revoked for merely recommending that open source compilers and build tools be used instead of MSVC and the Windows SDK. That's because GCC's crap at code generation. Sad but true. But I do wonder if it's possible to build ReactOS with OpenWatcom, available for free. Regards, Alex -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
