From: kassarji@spot.Colorado.EDU (KASSARJIAN STEVEN J) Subject: Re: DOS/MS Windows compatibility for Free Software Date: 8 Jun 1992 02:54:20 GMT
In article <BpHx9z.I0v@acsu.buffalo.edu> v206gb6c@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PauL M SchwartZ) writes:
>In article <3295@key.COM>, rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes...
>>1) A kernel hack that would allow MS Windows 3.0 or 3.1 to run under the
>> DOS emulation mode under Linux. My understanding is that this would
>> essentially involve writing a set of DOS Protected Memory Interface
>> routines.
>
> This isn't gonna happen. There is no way to access DPMI from the virtual
>8086 mode. The emulation mode thinks it is a 8086 box all by its lonesome.
>MS Windows 3.0 runs OK under this in real (*yuck*) mode and 3.1 dropped this
>mode all together. Don't expect it to come back for Win 4.0. As of yet the
The conclusion is correct. However, one should be aware that OS/2 v2.0 _does_
run DOS programs requiring DPMI from within these virtual boxes.
The reason that MS-Windows will run only in real mode from within a virtual box
(even one supporting DPMI) is that MS-Windows can only be a DPMI server, not a
DPMI client.
MS had promised to make MS-Windows DPMI client capable, but they failed to
complete their promise. Since reputation maintains that MS has good
programmers (they just don't follow the rules), the only conclusion is that
MS did not want Windows to run under _any_ OS other than their own (in
particular, OS/2).
Talk about software control! Sounds like MS is saying _how_ its customers may
run their software. The next step maybe MS telling its customers what hardware
they may use. (The first stage of this could be inferred from a recent move by
MS to license an industry trademark to label a machine as being "Windows
ready".[I think I have the details correct.])
(This is why it took so long for IBM to get Windows to run under OS/2; they
had to rewrite much of Windows.)
>Linux project is working on stabilizing the OS itself (and writing a new
>file system (I hope)). THis is far more important than getting MS-DOS to run
>under the system. The ability to run DOS programs will have a limited effect
>on most users. They haven't gone to some of the relatively well supported
>commercial *ix's that have DOS compatibility because they don't want to go to
>*ix. Additionally, as it has been sited here many times before (the gnu grp.)
>many commercial users want support rather than a superior system. That is a
>major road block to the acceptance of a Linux type system in a commercial
>setting. I've started to ramble, ergo, I'm outta here.
I think that the biggest hinderence for DOS users migrating to any Unix system
or clone is the difficulty associated with maintaining _any_ unix machine.
Next biggest is probably the need to learn how to use the equivelents to the
software that they're used to (or the difficulties in getting their favorite
DOS app to run in a DOS box). And let's not talk about the marginal equipment
sold as "clones."
Steve Kassarjian
kassarji@spot.Colorado.edu