As a good example, trusty ol' PKZIP.EXE fails under Windows 2000 with
some obscure fault that kills the entire session.
Given that Microsoft had flawless DOS-support on 32-bit Windows (even
NT) for a period of time, confirms that it can be done. [Linux does DOS
too.] The only solid reason that I can see for it not working is ..
Nevertheless, the MS-DOS environment contemplated by and designed-for by
Paradox for DOS is enormously different from what you have today. It is
so much less expensive to build a new replacement using modern tools and
For example, and just throwing a few numbers around here, you might
spend $8,000 on creating one or more RFPs or replacement-system designs,
and another $50,000 on a replacement system -- signed, sealed,
delivered, and most importantly, guaranteed. (I'm excluding annual
Lest you gulp at such an (off the cuff) price guesstimate... [a] the
cost of keeping a technological dinosaur alive is much more; and [b]
Paradox-for-DOS applications that are still alive these days are
probably mission-critical, and doing enough transaction volume that the
cost of its replacement is only a few dollars per transaction. Finally
[c] the cost of a mission-critical system going out-of-service, or being
replaced in a desperate rush, is beyond measure.
Notice that I said "spending $8,000 on replacement system designs and
RFPs." This is a vital first step .. you should contract with at least
two experts, do the job right, and pay them separately so they are
impartial - true - consultants.
You should not delay on this.
> > Strange, all my trusty Paradox 4.5 DOS networked applications run
> > well and quick in Windows XP. What am I missing?
> well, if nothing else, you're missing enough time and experience
> with that platform to consider the
> statement meaningful.. Microsoft is going to great lengths to
> make sure old DOS stuff doesn't work on their
> newer platforms.. each version has issues with shell-to-DOS
> and/or mouse use and/or printing and/or floppy
> access and/or DOS commands themselves, etc.. even some
> interactive menu selections..
> to be honest, your apps might not be robust enough to use these,
> and other problematic things, enough to
> even have it come into play.. and therefore your experience
> wouldn't necessarily be valid for other users..
> to get to the point, my apps are massive and complex compared
> to most people's apps.. there are problems
> with *every* platform except 95 and 98, and the problems are
> different with each platform.. I don't allow
> my apps to be used on anything except 95 and 98, period..
> on those platforms, I can *guarantee* that
> everything works as designed.. and those are the only two that qualify..