Re: [ros-dev] Core developer

[Wesley Parish]

MS Win 3.0 as largely a DOS extender written large, with a graphical  
interface.

MS Win 3.1 had a bit more of the 32-bit disk access and the like;  
iirc it made better use of protected memory - though not much. It  
liked crashing.

MS Win 3.1 Windows For Workgroups was a lot closer to a 32-bit  
system, though it - much like the remainder of the Win 3.x/9.x lineup  
- relied on DOS as a boot loader and thunked its merry way through  
int21h and the like.

MS Win NT was built on a different model, taken almost completely  
lock-stock-and-barrel from DEC's VMS and related systems. NT didn't  
need DOS - in fact, it tended to crash badly written Win/DOS  
applications.

I expect DOSBox will run Win3.x/9.x apps without too much trouble,  
provided they can access suitable DLLs.

On 8/05/2012, at 10:02 PM, Sven Barth wrote:

>   Am 08.05.2012 11:47, schrieb Andrew Faulds:
> >   Ah, I see. Windows 3.1 was a 32-bit kernel
> > running 16-bit  
> >  applications, how odd.
> >  
>  Ehm... no. Windows 3.x was a 16-bit system though it needed the  
>  protected mode to run (to perform 32-bit disk access, etc.).
>
>  Only Windows 95 was a (more) true 32-bit system (like Windows NT  
>  3.1 was already).
>
>  Regards,
>  Sven
>
> >   On 8 May 2012 10:37, Sven
> > Barth<pascaldragon(a)googlemail.com>  wrote:
> > >   Am 08.05.2012 11:33, schrieb Andrew Faulds:
> > >
> > > >   Oh, I didn't think of that. Windows 3.x
> > > > applications run in NTVDM?
> > > >  
> > >  Yes as they are basically "DOS applications" as well. Only  
> > >  Windows 95
> > >  introduced a difference.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Regards,
> > >  Sven
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev