• Re: MS-DOS Emulation -use

    From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 13:12:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA


    This was a minimalist message? :)
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Thursday, July 23, 2020 11:29:00
    Hi Ky!

    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®
    .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.

    This was a minimalist message? :)

    I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>

    Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
    MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:

    https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7




    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... What do you drive?

    People crazy.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Saturday, July 25, 2020 00:41:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    Hi Ky!

    > .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.

    Oh, I see. The message is up above!

    KM> This was a minimalist message? :)

    I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>

    He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

    Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
    MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:

    https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7

    Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that I think
    of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should work to host it.
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Saturday, July 25, 2020 08:38:00

    Hi Ky!

    > .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.
    Oh, I see. The message is up above!
    KM> This was a minimalist message? :)
    I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>
    He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

    <logging in> ..."No such user" ??!!


    Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
    MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions: https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7
    Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that
    I think of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should
    work to host it.

    So I guess it is easier to understand the information when the
    information is present! <g> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
    I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
    to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
    others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
    software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)

    As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a
    Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
    I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application
    saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
    one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
    insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
    likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.


    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... When tempted to fight fire w/fire, remember Fire Department uses water.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Sunday, July 26, 2020 13:05:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    Hi Ky!

    > > .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.
    KM> Oh, I see. The message is up above!
    KM> KM> This was a minimalist message? :)
    > I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>
    KM> He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

    <logging in> ..."No such user" ??!!

    Well, that'll teach us to shoot off our keyboards!!

    > Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
    > MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:
    > https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c
    > id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7
    KM> Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that
    KM> I think of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should
    KM> work to host it.

    So I guess it is easier to understand the information when the
    information is present! <g> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
    I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
    to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
    others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
    software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)

    Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to Windows,
    the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded correctly. Or
    the config options were different; as I vaguely recall Win3.1 used
    different config options for its DOS shell.

    I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat bits to
    deal with something like this, then again I was using DRDOS underneath,
    and while it had more functions, it also had more cranks compared to MSDOS.

    As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
    I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
    one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
    insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
    likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.

    Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Monday, July 27, 2020 09:03:00

    Hi Ky!

    Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
    I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
    to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
    software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)
    Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
    Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
    recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell.

    Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
    Windows when I needed it.


    I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
    bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
    DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
    more cranks compared to MSDOS.

    The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried
    DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream'
    stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could
    (and did) provide some customer support.


    As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
    I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
    one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
    insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
    likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.
    Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.

    Plus relatively easy to have a back up: the newer OS allow copying of
    the entire SD card as opposed to just the data partition (maybe was also
    part of the OS partiion, I don't recall). Having a clone of the card is
    nice!

    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... Split personality? Who, us??
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:08:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    Hi Ky!

    > Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
    > I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
    > to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
    > others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
    > software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)
    KM> Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
    KM> Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded
    KM> correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
    KM> recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell.

    Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
    Windows when I needed it.

    If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
    due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
    number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
    Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
    little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
    and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
    and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
    nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single crash!)

    Anyway, how this was set would change how Windows behaved, and whether
    it could load all at once or had to first wait for DOS to settle down. I vaguely recall that Windows had its own FILES statement, but was
    influenced by the one in CONFIG.SYS, at least for apps like Office that
    still believed the world ran on DOS4. In fact, to this day...

    C:\WINDOWS>setver

    WINWORD.EXE 4.10
    EXCEL.EXE 4.10
    METRO.EXE 3.31
    DD.EXE 4.01
    DD.BIN 4.01
    LL3.EXE 4.01

    You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x didn't
    close files properly on disk, and apparently these programs compensated,
    which was disagreeable to other DOS versions (and thereby caused the
    very files-left-open problem it was supposed to prevent).


    KM> I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
    KM> bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
    KM> DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
    KM> more cranks compared to MSDOS.

    The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream' stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could
    (and did) provide some customer support.

    Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started on this
    stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't worth the trouble,
    with rare exceptions -- frex, you could multiboot different species of
    DOS... tho what it actually did was shell to the next DOS, not a true multiboot. (At one point I had a very silly setup of three different
    DOSs on the same system, that chain-booted to the one you wanted.)

    DRDOS had a DPMI memory manager, which was great for Windows, but caused conflicts with stuff like DOOM that had its own DPMI manager... so
    needed a boot option to set up memory differently for that.

    And DRDOS's performance was (per actual test) 20% slower than MSDOS6. So
    after the Win3.1 system with DRDOS7 was finally retired, I never messed
    with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS, by preference it's MSDOS7 from
    Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver). Best performance and as bug-free as anything gets. FreeDOS is okay but I seem to run into more holes and
    stuff that doesn't work as expected.

    Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the sewers
    of Ky's brain...

    > As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a
    > Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
    > I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application
    KM> Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.

    Plus relatively easy to have a back up: the newer OS allow copying of
    the entire SD card as opposed to just the data partition (maybe was also
    part of the OS partiion, I don't recall). Having a clone of the card is nice!

    Definitely!
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Mike Powell@454:3/105 to KY MOFFET on Wednesday, July 29, 2020 16:06:00
    If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
    due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
    number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
    Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
    little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
    and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
    and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
    nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single crash!)

    I can remember setting FILES to no lower than 50, and sometimes as high as
    70, to get things to work right. You may be onto something there.

    Mike


    * SLMR 2.1a * As I was going up a stair, I met a man who wasn't there.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: ILink: CCO - capitolcityonline.net (454:3/105)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Mike Powell on Wednesday, July 29, 2020 22:14:00
    MIKE POWELL wrote:
    If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
    due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and
    therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
    number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
    Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
    little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
    and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
    and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
    nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    crash!)

    I can remember setting FILES to no lower than 50, and sometimes as high as 70, to get things to work right. You may be onto something there.

    Yeah, I think the fix I was given went something like:
    FILES=60
    STACKS=32,512

    A handy reference, for those of us living in the past! https://networkencyclopedia.com/config-sys/

    Apparently the problem is still with us!

    https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ab8d5278-51c9-4d64-935c-b0eceac915b3/where-is-confignt-for-16-bits-apps-on-windows-10

    If it won't let you see... some program that worked in Win7-32bit did
    not play nice with Win10-32bit. Solution was... FILES statement in
    CONFIG.NT!

    ===
    It's still the same config.nt, but now (as in Windows 8.1):

    files=60

    device=%SystemRoot% system32ansi.sys

    Found it here (in German): http://www.drwindows.de/windows-8-allgemein/60424-dos-programme-windows-8-probleme-anzahl-files.html
    ===
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Wednesday, July 29, 2020 09:43:00

    Hi Ky!

    > Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
    > I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
    > to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
    > others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
    > software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)
    KM> Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
    KM> Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded
    KM> correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
    KM> recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell. Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
    Windows when I needed it.
    If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
    CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
    some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
    some ridiculously high number.

    That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
    of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
    little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
    almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
    back and check.


    I remember this specifically
    because DRDOS Did Things Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0
    would not run, and Windows was a little goofy in some other way
    I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft, and was told to set FILES
    and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers... and then suddenly
    all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
    misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    crash!)

    Seven days is considered a long time!!



    You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
    didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
    programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
    versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
    was supposed to prevent).

    One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
    elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
    system and seperate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
    else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)



    KM> I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
    KM> bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
    KM> DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
    KM> more cranks compared to MSDOS.
    The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream' stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could (and did) provide some customer support.
    Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
    on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
    worth the trouble, with rare exceptions -- frex, you could
    multiboot different species of DOS... tho what it actually did
    was shell to the next DOS, not a true multiboot. (At one point I
    had a very silly setup of three different DOSs on the same
    system, that chain-booted to the one you wanted.)

    Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
    at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
    ...Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??



    DRDOS had a DPMI memory manager, which was great for Windows, but
    caused conflicts with stuff like DOOM that had its own DPMI
    manager... so needed a boot option to set up memory differently
    for that.

    Yup: two utilities trying to do the same job at the same time isn't
    going to work!


    And DRDOS's performance was (per actual test) 20% slower than
    MSDOS6. So after the Win3.1 system with DRDOS7 was finally
    retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
    by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).
    Best performance and as bug-free as anything gets. FreeDOS is
    okay but I seem to run into more holes and stuff that doesn't
    work as expected.

    I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
    because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent
    Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
    Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is
    happening.




    Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
    sewers of Ky's brain...

    So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
    and during droughts..... <g>


    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... Shouldn't you be doing something productive?
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Friday, July 31, 2020 21:22:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    Hi Ky!
    KM> If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
    KM> CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
    KM> some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
    KM> some ridiculously high number.

    That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
    of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
    little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes

    When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else... kablooie.

    almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
    back and check.

    Time machine needs rebooting? :D

    KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
    KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    KM> crash!)

    Seven days is considered a long time!!

    Not in MY house! <g>

    KM> You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
    KM> didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
    KM> programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
    KM> versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
    KM> was supposed to prevent).

    One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed

    Haha, so it goes!

    elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
    system and seperate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
    else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)

    Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak and
    AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency Hell).

    KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
    KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't

    Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
    at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
    ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??

    There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

    Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...

    KM> retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
    KM> by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).

    I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
    because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent

    Yeah, I'm down to just a couple things that need Old Stuff, and some
    year I'll find me a Pascal programmer and get the 16bit DOS pedigree
    program converted to 32bit Windows. Or x64 linux, as the case may be.

    Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
    Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is
    happening.

    Indeed... I can feel baffled often enough without lacking these old foundations!


    KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
    KM> sewers of Ky's brain...

    So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
    and during droughts..... <g>

    ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Saturday, August 01, 2020 10:11:00

    Hi Ky!

    KM> If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
    KM> CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
    KM> some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
    KM> some ridiculously high number.
    That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
    of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
    little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
    When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
    by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
    kablooie.

    Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time
    ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
    in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
    old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)


    almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
    back and check.
    Time machine needs rebooting? :D

    Might be abad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
    the computer epoch date!


    KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
    KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    KM> crash!)
    Seven days is considered a long time!!
    Not in MY house! <g>

    It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!


    KM> You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
    KM> didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
    KM> programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
    KM> versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
    KM> was supposed to prevent).
    One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
    Haha, so it goes!

    Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
    not so it looks like incompetence!


    elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
    system and separate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
    else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)
    Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
    and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
    Hell).

    I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use
    something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course
    that has backfired with the utility no longer working when the other
    utility was altered. (Thinking in particular of GET and STRINGS.)



    KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
    KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
    Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
    at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
    ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??
    There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

    Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An
    Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at
    other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
    other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
    halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.


    Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...

    I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;
    have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
    maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....



    KM> retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
    KM> by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).
    I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
    because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent
    Yeah, I'm down to just a couple things that need Old Stuff, and
    some year I'll find me a Pascal programmer and get the 16bit DOS
    pedigree program converted to 32bit Windows. Or x64 linux, as the
    case may be.


    Well I'll admit to being a bit biased in my searches so ignoring the
    Windows options and looking at those for Linux.

    https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
    He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
    16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
    that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.

    I was expecting another page as he said 'tutorial'...


    This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly

    My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux
    Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
    my head.



    Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
    Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is happening.
    Indeed... I can feel baffled often enough without lacking these
    old foundations!

    <chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
    system going here: details is posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
    Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
    -- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
    me their name for the device).

    Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.



    KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
    KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
    So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
    and during droughts..... <g>
    ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D

    Nah: Prodigy!

    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Ky Moffet@454:1/1 to Barry Martin on Monday, August 03, 2020 19:57:00
    BARRY MARTIN wrote:
    Hi Ky!

    > That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
    > of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
    > little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
    KM> When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
    KM> by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
    KM> kablooie.

    Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time

    I probably wouldn't remember so specifically except for that MSOffice
    problem, and that my brain never throws away anything. Doesn't label or
    index a durn thing, but keeps all of it!

    ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
    in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
    old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)

    Topic? What topic?? :D Tho I vaguely recall that with the NT base, it
    no longer really matters, tho might be there for compatibility.


    > almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
    > back and check.
    KM> Time machine needs rebooting? :D

    Might be abad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
    the computer epoch date!

    Especially if it's Borg (the first of mine built by assimilating other
    PCs), who left to its own devices thought the year was 2093!!


    > KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
    > KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    > KM> crash!)
    > Seven days is considered a long time!!
    KM> Not in MY house! <g>

    It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!

    38 years or so later, the warning is still in force! <g>

    > One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
    KM> Haha, so it goes!
    Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
    not so it looks like incompetence!

    I've heard of some actually attempting that... thing is, those who think
    that way usually aren't as good as they thought... and get caught.

    KM> Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
    KM> and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
    KM> Hell).

    I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use
    something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course

    Dependency: same as a DLL, except for linux. Shared bits of programs
    and/or OS.

    But the problem is that dependencies can get out of sync, and then
    whichever program didn't update its build... no longer works.

    In fact I lost my preferred font manager to that very problem. It has a dependency old enough it conflicts with current OS versions. So this
    program works on the, uh, archival PCLOS that I've never updated, but
    not on the one I keep up to date. (Synaptic removed it, being fairly
    good about resolving conflicts that way. Otherwise I would have had
    several broken packages.)

    that has backfired with the utility no longer working when the other
    utility was altered. (Thinking in particular of GET and STRINGS.)

    No idea about GET and STRINGS!!

    > KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
    > KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
    > Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
    > at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
    > ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??
    KM> There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

    Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at

    That sounds like a less fanciful explanation. <g>

    other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
    other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
    halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.

    Whereas I have a variety of OSs... in fact Fireball has accumulated a
    stack of <counts> SIX hard drives with several different Windows and one PCLOS. (I no longer multiboot, thanks to issues variously with GRUB and
    with the current Windows bootloader. Much safer to just swap HDs.)

    KM> Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...
    I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;

    Heh.. in my book, Gnome3 is completely unusable. If I wanted a cellphone interface, I'd use a bloody cellphone!!

    Also, compared to just about every other species of linux (except
    possibly Mageia), Ubuntu is a hog. Not so critical on newish hardware,
    but it's downright sluggish on an older box. Realized why when I
    compared it directly to Mint... Mint is built from Ubuntu, but runs MUCH faster, and... per actual count only loads 1/4th as many modules. Well,
    no wonder!!

    So that's how I came to so very much dislike Ubuntu.

    have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
    maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....

    Or a complete lack of patience :)

    https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
    He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
    16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
    that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.

    Decided WINE and DOSbox both not worth the effort; easier to run
    VirtualBox and WinXP. In fact that is now how I deal with 16-bit
    anything, and with Win-only apps I can't live without. And being lazy,
    built it once then exported an OVA, so I have the same WinXP in every VM.

    I was expecting another page as he said 'tutorial'...

    This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly

    Assembly language is its own arcanity... this program is in Pascal
    (author gave me the source code for my personal use... if I could track
    him down again I'd ask about opensourcing it).

    My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux

    Now my brain hurts. <g>

    Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
    my head.

    That's because they're hitting me over the head! <g>

    <chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
    system going here: details is posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
    Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
    -- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
    me their name for the device).

    Ah, yes, the old "unplugged cable" gambit... <g>

    Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.

    Wait, it doesn't??

    > KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
    > KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
    > So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
    > and during droughts..... <g>
    KM> ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D

    Nah: Prodigy!

    LOL, not AOL? :)

    .. Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...

    I hear water...
    þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
  • From Barry Martin@454:1/1 to Ky Moffet on Tuesday, August 04, 2020 07:59:00

    Hi Ky!

    > That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
    > of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
    > little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
    KM> When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
    KM> by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
    KM> kablooie.
    Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time
    I probably wouldn't remember so specifically except for that
    MSOffice problem, and that my brain never throws away anything.
    Doesn't label or index a durn thing, but keeps all of it!

    I can relate! There are times when it being all indexed neat and tidy
    would be handy, then there are those times when the randomness works
    better (like "got a problem? Don't know what it fixed but 'FILES=40'
    worked").


    ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
    in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
    old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)
    Topic? What topic?? :D Tho I vaguely recall that with the NT
    base, it no longer really matters, tho might be there for
    compatibility.

    Topic: those random words in the Subject field! As for my "FILES=40"
    guess I'll just leave it alone as things seem to be working acceptably.



    > almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
    > back and check.
    KM> Time machine needs rebooting? :D
    Might be a bad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
    the computer epoch date!
    Especially if it's Borg (the first of mine built by assimilating
    other PCs), who left to its own devices thought the year was
    2093!!

    <snortle!!> That was 1993, add a hundred years to make the BIOS look current....



    > KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
    > KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
    > KM> crash!)
    > Seven days is considered a long time!!
    KM> Not in MY house! <g>
    It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!
    38 years or so later, the warning is still in force! <g>

    A little rusty, but that's part of the punishment!


    > One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
    KM> Haha, so it goes!
    Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
    not so it looks like incompetence!
    I've heard of some actually attempting that... thing is, those
    who think that way usually aren't as good as they thought... and
    get caught.

    The job security is there will always be problems, and they don't have to
    be created. Was reading a post the other day where an automatic
    firmware update took a company's system down. Company's IT fixed the
    problem, then called the hardware company to find a way to turn off
    automartic updates (run manually instead so could test first). Hardware
    tech minsuderstood and rolled back the firmware update instead, and so
    the company's computers crashed again!


    KM> Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
    KM> and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
    KM> Hell).
    I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course
    Dependency: same as a DLL, except for linux. Shared bits of
    programs and/or OS.

    So a dependency depends on the OS! <jk>


    But the problem is that dependencies can get out of sync, and
    then whichever program didn't update its build... no longer
    works.

    Right: and probably can't keep the old dependency for compatibility:
    first thing coming to mind is the old and the new have the same
    filename. Can't change to 'depencency.old' as the utility is looking
    for 'dependency.current'. Suppose the best way would be a version: 'dependency.20200804'. That probably creates some other problems.


    In fact I lost my preferred font manager to that very problem. It
    has a dependency old enough it conflicts with current OS
    versions. So this program works on the, uh, archival PCLOS that
    I've never updated, but not on the one I keep up to date.
    (Synaptic removed it, being fairly good about resolving conflicts
    that way. Otherwise I would have had several broken packages.)

    <rattle-rattle!> I had a semi-similar problem with my scanner software.
    I use the scanner intermittently: might use it a few times in a week and
    then not again for a month. Went to use it: utility didn't see but did
    see the all-in-one in the basement. (The scanner is USB, the all-in-one wireless.) Retry, unplug/plug USB -- <grumble> - try different utility
    - it works fine ('oddly' doesn't see the all-in-one) so make the scan
    that way.

    Check on-line for troubleshooting. Update utility - same problem. Try
    a few command-line checks - no problems. Check the original utility -
    problem still. Not sure what happened but something finally broke
    through: took a longer than normal time to find any scanners (found the all-in-one almost immediately) and then the one up here and things have
    been fine since. (Just checked: still good.)



    > KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
    > KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
    > Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
    > at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
    > ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??
    KM> There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>
    Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at
    That sounds like a less fanciful explanation. <g>

    There are times when the direct path is taken!

    other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
    other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
    halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.
    Whereas I have a variety of OSs... in fact Fireball has
    accumulated a stack of <counts> SIX hard drives with several
    different Windows and one PCLOS. (I no longer multiboot, thanks
    to issues variously with GRUB and with the current Windows
    bootloader. Much safer to just swap HDs.)

    Plus with manual vs. electronic switching the OS is 'pure', whereas with
    the GRUB doing the selection there is the possibility of being altered
    as the data passes through.


    KM> Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...
    I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;
    Heh.. in my book, Gnome3 is completely unusable. If I wanted a
    cellphone interface, I'd use a bloody cellphone!!

    Now that's a visual!! I pretty much go with the flow, primarily
    because I don't know the 'programming details' and so half-figure the
    people putting it all together for me mad ethat selection for a reason. Admittedly not always the right selection,


    Also, compared to just about every other species of linux (except
    possibly Mageia), Ubuntu is a hog. Not so critical on newish
    hardware, but it's downright sluggish on an older box. Realized
    why when I compared it directly to Mint... Mint is built from
    Ubuntu, but runs MUCH faster, and... per actual count only loads
    1/4th as many modules. Well, no wonder!!
    So that's how I came to so very much dislike Ubuntu.

    If 75% less modules to 'look through' then yes, would be faster. OTOH
    what's missing? Probably nothing of usual importance but may be items
    needed for compatibility with 'old stuff'. Just guessing. If so, seems
    could look on-line for the necessary module -- which could be dangerous!
    -- or look internally in an archival subdir and copy into the main one.
    Now thinking that dependancies issue!


    have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
    maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....
    Or a complete lack of patience :)

    "SERENITY NOW"!


    https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
    He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
    16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
    that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.
    Decided WINE and DOSbox both not worth the effort; easier to run VirtualBox and WinXP. In fact that is now how I deal with 16-bit
    anything, and with Win-only apps I can't live without. And being
    lazy, built it once then exported an OVA, so I have the same
    WinXP in every VM.

    But the clone on this system does this and the clone on that system does something else -- oh! it's those two Dells! <g>


    This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly
    Assembly language is its own arcanity... this program is in
    Pascal (author gave me the source code for my personal use... if
    I could track him down again I'd ask about opensourcing it).

    Decades ago I tried to self-teach myself assembly from a book or two.
    Some 'but first' got in the way....


    My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux
    Now my brain hurts. <g>

    That was simple!


    Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
    my head.
    That's because they're hitting me over the head! <g>

    You're taller!



    <chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
    system going here: details in posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
    Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
    -- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
    me their name for the device).
    Ah, yes, the old "unplugged cable" gambit... <g>

    But it's plugged in at the end we're asking about!


    Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.
    Wait, it doesn't??

    Ugh-ugh: black boxes!


    > KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
    > KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
    > So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
    > and during droughts..... <g>
    KM> ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D
    Nah: Prodigy!
    LOL, not AOL? :)

    I suppose if it was there it would have been 'London on Line' rather
    than 'America on Line'!


    .. Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...
    I hear water...

    Flood! RUN!!!

    ¯ ®
    ¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
    ¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
    ¯ ®
    ¯ (Humans know what ®
    ¯ to remove.) ®

    ... Both oars in the water, but on the same side of the boat.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
    þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

    --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
    * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)