OSDev.org

Stumbled upon this trying to find a 16bit compiler http://www.trnicely.net/misc/vista.html

I think Vista is beginning to be more and more stupid...I don't see why it would treat a 32bit program as a 16bit program....also, if you click properties in the test program there, you can see it treats it exactly like a DOS file...

hckr83 wrote:Stumbled upon this trying to find a 16bit compiler http://www.trnicely.net/misc/vista.html

I think Vista is beginning to be more and more stupid...I don't see why it would treat a 32bit program as a 16bit program....also, if you click properties in the test program there, you can see it treats it exactly like a DOS file...

That's microsoft for you. Looks great but when you start getting closer to the Software undernieth. You find gaping holes that have not been implemented correctly (just have a look at windose 95, 98 or ME and you'll see what I mean). And as such cause the software to either not perform the way it said on the box or malfunction.

I am happy with XP and Linux! Vista i heard is really crappy. Compatability Issues, DRM, Free ware compilers. i think Windows 98 and XP are my favorite windows. Win ME was a was a freakin waste. and had barely a 1 yr shelf life after XP Was in! i never had an Apple Macintosh. we borrowed a //e from my mom's school along time ago but no Mac.

Speewave wrote:I am happy with XP and Linux! Vista i heard is really crappy. Compatability Issues, DRM, Free ware compilers. i think Windows 98 and XP are my favorite windows. Win ME was a was a freakin waste. and had barely a 1 yr shelf life after XP Was in! i never had an Apple Macintosh. we borrowed a //e from my mom's school along time ago but no Mac.

I won my copy of Windows ME.. I'm using XP tablet edition now, although I have 2 copies of Vista Business Edition (one from college, one from my tablet's express upgrade deal).

hckr83 wrote:Stumbled upon this trying to find a 16bit compiler http://www.trnicely.net/misc/vista.html

I think Vista is beginning to be more and more stupid...I don't see why it would treat a 32bit program as a 16bit program....also, if you click properties in the test program there, you can see it treats it exactly like a DOS file...

...because it IS a dos app. Using 32-bit instructions doesn't necessarily make it 32-bit, it still relies on DOS.

this could be true also. Windows XP has a small amount of DPMI alloted to Protected Mode \ 32-bit Applications. Try Running this with DOSBox (dosbox.sourceforge.net)

Christopher C. Perry of Michigan State University suggested copying the cmd.exe command interpreter from XP into Vista to see if it would (1) start up, and (2) solve the memory problem. It does start up and function, but is subject to the same memory limitation as Vista's own cmd.exe. It also is unable to operate in full screen mode within Vista, although it does so in Windows XP. Copies of cmd.exe from both the 2001 and SP2 versions of XP were tried. In addition, the versions of command.com from Vista, XP SP2, and Win98SE were tried; none of them were functional within Vista

(from the website)

Try Copying both cmd.exe and NTVDM.exe (the 16bit emulator for XP)

The best operating systems from McRio$oft are surely Windows 95, the first good OS, and then, Windows XP or 2000. Windows 98 was a bit more unstable (I bet you saw the video with Bill Gates and his W98 unexpected BSOD) and Windows ME - that was, is and will be still piece of ****, it's just Windows 9x without the DOS kernel running underneath (? well maybe), along with instability and other stuff borrowed from pre-alpha 98 releases.
Windows NT was stable, but it was more complicated than 95 and NT was targeted primarily only to corporations, I think...

When I ran Windows 1.x in QEMU, I noticed much more things than the old Microsoft logo... like the first BSOD too...

inflater

Windows ME still relied on DOS, It was not part of the NT series..

But does that make any difference? both were & are crap

Windows 95 really was like a big step for Windows, particularly the new GUI(or did NT3.5 or 4.0 come out before it?)

It also introduced bits of working(and other bits of non-working) plug-and-play capabilities

Windows 98, to me, was just Windows 95 with a bit of improvements, particularly FAT32
Windows ME was just...well, it's just crap, though, if it hadn't been so bad, Microsoft may have attempted to bring another DOS based OS out..

Windows NT was really were it gained stability, but NT didn't become very popular until Windows 2000, and it became VERY popular with XP...really, XP pro and 2k pro are almost exactly the same except for GUI stuff...XP Home is like 2k, but without some of the advanced entwork oriented features, or some of the advanced user account control

really, I think Vista is a dud..."Windows Vista, all the stability of Windows ME, but with fancy graphics!"
lol..."Zip drives, all the stability of floppy drives, but iwth a little bit more space!"

Really I like Vista, after you turn off all the crappy eye candy. So far I have only blue screened once and that was after I installed new updates and did a driver update and forgot to restart the computer for more than 2 days. Also I have only crashed explorer.exe like twice now. Yes it has bugs, everything has bugs at first. From what I heard they are due to release a service pack later this year which will hopefully fix many of them. And I don't know why everyone is saying 95 was better than 98. 98 was more stable and had more drivers and it didn't rely on dos as much.

I have yet to blue screen actually, but explorer usually crashes about 4 times a week(at least)

and a ton of applications don't run right....and no one tell me to use the compatibility mode! I've tried that....seriously I think the only thing compatibility mode does is set the OS string thing to windows XP...that's the only thing I've observed itdo so far..

frank wrote:Really I like Vista, after you turn off all the crappy eye candy. So far I have only blue screened once and that was after I installed new updates and did a driver update and forgot to restart the computer for more than 2 days. Also I have only crashed explorer.exe like twice now. Yes it has bugs, everything has bugs at first. From what I heard they are due to release a service pack later this year which will hopefully fix many of them. And I don't know why everyone is saying 95 was better than 98. 98 was more stable and had more drivers and it didn't rely on dos as much.

I still use Windows 98 for Compiling things, it never seems to get lagged down and runs like there is no system overhead at all.

EDIT: This sounds way too much like an ad, note i do not advocate the use of any form of Windows and feel they should all be burnt.

hckr83 wrote:Windows 98, to me, was just Windows 95 with a bit of improvements, particularly FAT32

If I remember correct, Win95 version B already supported FAT32 . And I've somewhere read, that Windows 95 had perfectly hidden USB 1.1 (or 1.0?) drivers but I do not know if it's true or not. Maybe it was the commercial preparement of "HID-compliant devices"

"Windows Vista, all the stability of Windows ME, but with fancy graphics!"

Quite apt

inflater

If I remember correct, Win95 version B already supported FAT32 Smile. And I've somewhere read, that Windows 95 had perfectly hidden USB 1.1 (or 1.0?) drivers Shocked but I do not know if it's true or not. Maybe it was the commercial preparement of "HID-compliant devices" Wink

there were several release versions of win95, win95 2.0 aka 'B' did support FAT32, and win95 2.1 aka 'B+' or 'B+USB' did support USB, but support wasnt installed by default and didnt work nearly as well as it did under win98

the problem is, win95 B was never sold to the public, so most people who had it got it illegally (it was at the time, and may still be, the most pirated software product of all time)

my copy is legal though