Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd May 2010 21:33 UTC
Windows "The first truly successful Microsoft Windows operating system is twenty years old today; Windows 3.0 was launched on the 22nd of May 1990 and was the successor to Windows 2.1x. The Graphics User interface (technically it was not an operating system) sat on top of MS-DOS and could run applications for the operating system from within a Window and many might fondly remember that it was available on 5.25-inch high density floppy disks. More significantly, it proved to be the perfect partner for Intel's then-new range of 386 processor, which bought protected mode and extended memory capabilities to the market."
Thread beginning with comment 426262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Technical detail
by kedwards on Mon 24th May 2010 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Technical detail"
kedwards
Member since:
2009-04-25


The same could be said for Win95


Not really. The Windows 95 boot sequence may look the same as DOS, it is actually quite different. IO.SYS in Windows 95 is 32bit and has CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT commands built-in. IO.SYS is in charge of loading MSDOS.SYS(a text file with boot option flags) and the Registry. CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT are optional in Windows 95(because the commands are already built into IO.SYS) and can be used to load 16bit DOS drivers if a Windows 32bit driver doesn't exist. Lastly IO.SYS automatically loads(unless you tell it otherwise) WIN.COM.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751413.aspx

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Technical detail
by Laurence on Mon 24th May 2010 11:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Technical detail"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well I seem to recall a number of drivers (sound in particular) not working unless they were defined in AUTOEXEC.BAT.

I'm pretty sure this wasn't just for DOS backwards compatability - but then it's been ~13 years since I've last installed drivers on Win95....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Technical detail
by darknexus on Mon 24th May 2010 13:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Technical detail"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

That's because some drivers were actually dos drivers that had a Windows driver interfacing with them, rather than being pure Windows drivers themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 2