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 Barthpascaldragon@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev