What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Klaus Meinhar » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:42:35



Hallo tomdzip,

Quote:> I visited www 4dos info and was intrigued by the capabilities of
> WinEdlin. Would
> you please advise me whether it is compatible with Vista and/or Win
> 7?

> Thanks a ton!

Yes!!! MS gave it a ribbon interface, and your text is now stored in
the cloud. Only drawback is you have to have a Windows Live account.

--
herzliche Gr?e,

Klaus Meinhard

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Klaus Meinhar » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:53:51


Hallo DOS Guy,

Quote:> Isin't it more accurate to say that Windows 9x is simply accessing
> hardware via a 16-bit driver running in the DOS VMM that IT
> (windows) controls?

Since DOS has to be started to provide a platform from which Win95/98
can be launched, and has to be present so that Win95/98 can run, it is
perfectly defendable to say that Win 95/98 runs "on top of" Windows.

Now you can carefully define your directions: perhaps Win95/98 runs
beside or under DOS?  You can try to define the amount of DOS as a
percentage in any given situation. You can ask youself if a clone of
the underlying DOS is still DOS at all: has it its soul?

What I don't understand is that this discussion crops up again after
so many years. The only one who had a real interest to hide the fact
that DOS is an essential part of Win95/98 was the MS marketing, who
wanted to present the picture a shiny new OS whithout stone age CLI
DOS to the public. For everybody else it simply doesn't matter.

--
Best regards,

*  Klaus Meinhard  *
<www.4dos.info>

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by DOS Gu » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:12:19



> > Isin't it more accurate to say that Windows 9x is simply accessing
> > hardware via a 16-bit driver running in the DOS VMM that IT
> > (windows) controls?

> Since DOS has to be started to provide a platform from which
> Win95/98 can be launched, and has to be present so that Win95/98
> can run, it is perfectly defendable to say that Win 95/98 runs
> "on top of" Windows.

No.  It's more like Win-9x is boot-loaded by DOS.  

I could just as easily say that Windows NT "runs on top of" it's boot
loader.  That is equally true according to your definition of "runs on
top of" - but it's not a useful statement.

The DOS that existed transiently in memory when win-9x was invoked is
swept away as 9x is started.  As such, Win-9x can't "run on top of"
something that no longer exists.

Quote:> Now you can carefully define your directions: perhaps Win95/98 runs
> beside or under DOS?  You can try to define the amount of DOS as a
> percentage in any given situation. You can ask youself if a clone of
> the underlying DOS is still DOS at all: has it its soul?

Are you trying to imply that DOS is acting like an always-present
foundation for Win-9x?

If so, you might want to explain how 16-bit, single-tasking real-mode
code can act as a foundation layer for a 32-bit, preemtive multi-tasking
protected-mode OS running "above" it.

Win-9x needs to be able to run 16-bit "DOS" programs.  That was part of
it's design mandate when it was created by Microsoft to insure backwards
compatibility with the existing i86 software.  So just because it does
have full DOS-emulation capability inside it doesn't mean it needs to
resort to any of it when it's running win32 code.

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Ross Ridg » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:46:40



Quote:>I'm still not sure where you stand then on SATA drivers for win-98.

I was very clear.

Quote:>In this case, it is not easily possible.  There is something that can't
>easily be overcome by win-98 enthusiasts when it comes to 512 mb video
>cards.

There's no problem other then it's difficult to write a complete driver
from scratch.  There's no reason why having 512MB of video RAM would
make it more difficult than having 256MB.  

Quote:>> My 1GB ATI 5770 works just fine with Windows 98 and this driver.

>In 16-color VGA mode?  Is that what you're calling "working just fine" ?

Yes.  For my purposes it worked just fine.

                                        Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU

-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
 db  //  

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Jim Leonar » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:03:08



Quote:> If so, you might want to explain how 16-bit, single-tasking real-mode
> code can act as a foundation layer for a 32-bit, preemtive multi-tasking
> protected-mode OS running "above" it.

This all depends on what your definition of foundation layer is, which
you seem to be sliding back and forth in an effort to prove your
argument.  You are religiously attached to your favorite operating
system family, so no argument is really going to sway you from your
opinion.

You seem offended that a 16-bit operating system is the foundation for
its higher functions, but I don't see you annoyed by the 16-bit BIOS
that is the foundation for *all* operating systems you boot on your
machine.  Wonder why that is.

Troll is trolling, move along.

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Rod Pemberto » Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:51:06


...

Quote:> > EVGA Nvidia 7960GT 512MB

> I was under the impression that 512 mb on a video card was totally
> incompatible with windows 98.  Perhaps that was only if the card was
> PCIe.  Is your card AGP?

No.  It's definately PCIe.  It uses Nvidia ForceWare 82.69 modded by Tihiy
for Win98.  Probably from either MSFN or MDGX or driver website ...  I
literally had zero problems with this.  It installed and worked.  The "Auto
overclocking" and "Manual overclocking" work too!  Actually, everything
works in the control panel, AFAICT, except identifying the GPU.  I've got my
vid set to 1680x1050-32bit color right now.  Uncapped, it gets roughly 450
to 700+ fps in Q3A.

ForceWare reports:
"Graphics card information"
"Processor: NVIDIA {Unknown}"
"Video BIOS version: 5.71.22.42.55"
"IRQ: 10"
"Bus: PCI Express x16"
"Memory: 512MB"
"ForceWare version: 82.69"
"TV Encoder Type: NVIDIA integrated"

I wasn't able to get 98 drivers for the onboard ethernet.  The sound card's
AC drivers gave me fits too, so I installed a card for that works for 98.
The SATA SSD is BIOS IDE emulation.  It's still unbelievably fast and
silent.  Is BIOS IDE emulation is just for the boot device?  SATA DVD-ROM
had to go through cheap aftermarket SATA-IDE bridge.  (BTW, you cannot
update your DVDs firmware that way ... doorstop.)  The only way I've been
able to get any SATA is for the CD/DVD-ROM is through a DOS driver called
GCDROM.SYS.  Unfortunately, no Joliet support though ... (for long names on
some installation disks).  XGCDROM.SYS does not work for my system with
SATA.  NUSB provides native USB support.  Xeno was working on native SATA
support by modifying Universal ATA drivers:

"Win 9x/ME support (now we have separate build with some limitation, thanks
to Xeno)."
http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/uni_ata/

I think I found the Win98 modded version of this driver, but couldn't figure
out how to get it to work:

BusMaster_v39j.rar
BusMaster_v39j1.rar
BusMaster_v39j1_Dbg.rar

Quote:> > Memory is capped at 1GB for WinSE by HIMEMX, but full 4GB should
> > be available in MS-DOS.  I've not confirmed though.

> I believe that DOS can see all 4 gb.

With XMS, I can't so far ...  2GB is all I've been able to get.  I tried a
bunch of XMS drivers a while back, but not all that I knew about.  With
DPMI, I can.  At least, DPMI says all 4GB is there, I've not actually
allocated it to confirm.  The machine's BIOS only recognizes 3328MB of the
4GB.  The rest is supposedly allocated via MMIO (video card), PCI bus, and
BIOS mapping.

Quote:> You're right that himemX must be
> used to prevent Win-9x from "seeing" more than 1.5 gb of system ram (I
> believe that if you have 1.5 gb or less of actual ram, then you don't
> need to use himemX).

Actually, after playing around a bit with HIMEMX.  It now recognizes 2GB
after adding /NUMHANDLES=128 to it's config.sys line.  WinSE is capped to
1GB via "MaxPhysPage=3FFFF" in system.ini.

I'm not sure why HIMEMX isn't mapping more memory.  I have another machine
where HIMEMX doesn't work correctly.  It only recognizes 64MB out of 256MB
...  So, there are some bugs with it, I think, that Japheth hasn't found
yet.

Quote:> I've played around with various vcache settings
> and have gotten win-98 to see and make use of 1.2 gb ram on
> a 2 gb system.  Windows ME can see and make use of almost
> 2 gb (this ability apparently can't be transplanted into win-98).

1GB is working well for me.  Of course, the SSD kicks in for the swap file
when browsing an exceptionally large number of websites, like 200+.  I
wanted to use MGDX's 98SE2ME conversion, especially for the faster neworking
DLLs, but couldn't locate a copy of WinME.

Rod Pemberton

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Ross Ridg » Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:49:23



>I wasn't able to get 98 drivers for the onboard ethernet.

Pretty much every Ethernet device has MS-DOS "NDIS" drivers avaible,
you might want to check for that.

Quote:>The SATA SSD is BIOS IDE emulation.  It's still unbelievably fast and
>silent.  Is BIOS IDE emulation is just for the boot device?

It's actually hardware level emulation, so it'll work for any device.

                                        Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU

-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
 db  //  

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Ant » Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:26:02



> What I don't understand is that this discussion crops up again after
> so many years.

It's my fault.

Newsgroups: alt.comp.virus
Subject: Re: Download links to Fake UPS spam (was: Fake UPS e-mail contains  *  ...)

In which I describe some malware found in DOS Guy's (Virus Guy in that
group) browser cache. At the end of the article I made what I consider
a throwaway remark:

"...Win9x which is really just a shell (albeit rather sophisticated)
 running on top of DOS".

That's what started the trouble, Virus Guy calling it a "crazy claim".
In my next post I retracted and in subsequent posts tried to explain
why I thought of it that way. Then I noticed the discussion here
(comp.os.msdos.programmer) and also quoted from Ross Ridge's "Yes and
no" article.

I've no idea why VG is so passionate about it because it was a side
issue to the thread topic and I wasn't arguing one way or the other
but only pointing out some things that made me take that view.

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Klaus Meinhar » Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:19:50


Hallo Ant,

Quote:> I've no idea why VG is so passionate about it because it was a side
> issue to the thread topic and I wasn't arguing one way or the other
> but only pointing out some things that made me take that view.

thanx for the explanation. :-)

As I tried to outline in my last posting, it is a question of how you
define your terms (under, on top of..., etc.) and shouldn't really
matter to anybody outside of MS marketing in the 90s. "DOS Guy" seems
to be a little challenged in grasping his facts, so I'll lay this to
rest.

--
Best regards,

*  Klaus Meinhard  *
<www.4dos.info>

 
 
 

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Post by Klaus Meinhar » Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:07:48


Hallo DOS Guy,

Quote:> No.  It's more like Win-9x is boot-loaded by DOS.

> I could just as easily say that Windows NT "runs on top of" it's
> boot loader.  That is equally true according to your definition of
> "runs on top of" - but it's not a useful statement.

You should try to read the Wikipedia entry
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95>

<Quote>

To end-users, MS-DOS appeared as an underlying component of Windows
95. For example, it was possible to prevent loading the graphical user
interface and boot the system into a real-mode MS-DOS environment.
This sparked debate amongst users and professionals over the question
of to what extent Windows 95 was an operating system or merely a
graphical shell running on top of MS-DOS. From an architectural
stance, both viewpoints lack nuance.

When the graphical user interface was started, the virtual machine
manager took over the filesystem-related and disk-related
functionality from MS-DOS, which itself was demoted to a compatibility
layer for 16-bit device drivers.[14] This contrasted with earlier
versions of Windows which relied on MS-DOS to perform file and disk
access. (Windows for Workgroups 3.11 could also largely bypass MS-DOS
when 32-bit file access and 32-bit disk access was enabled.) Keeping
MS-DOS in memory allowed Windows 95 to use DOS device drivers if
suitable Windows drivers were unavailable. MS-DOS also still handled
most other functions (for example, allocating memory and parsing file
names), issued by legacy Win16 and DOS applications, as Microsoft saw
little benefit in replacing these helper functions with newly-written
32-bit code.[14]

<Unquote>

--
Best regards,

*  Klaus Meinhard  *
<www.4dos.info>