Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Feb 2018 23:08 UTC
Windows

In November last year I wrote about the forgotten and obscure feature of early Windows 95 builds that lets you run Windows 3.1 in a window on Windows 95. Since then I was wondering if this would still work on the final build (950) of Windows 95, considering so much has changed since build 58s.

I won't spoil it.

Thread beginning with comment 653699
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
by Andre on Fri 9th Feb 2018 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0"
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

What makes an operating system an operating system rather then an application, especially in the (MS-)DOS days? Back in the days where each application that handles sounds had to include its own support, rather then rely on the operating systems support.

Stating that Windows 3.1 used its own drivers, well.... running on top of (MS-)DOS you had to for most hardware. Okay, there were DOS drivers for mice, but that's about it. And for CD-ROM drives, Windows 3.1 depended on the support DOS offered.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

What makes an operating system an operating system rather then an application, especially in the (MS-)DOS days?


At the most basic, probably the interrupt handler. When an interrupt is generated by a piece of hardware, the OS is what handles it. When a piece of software generates an interrupt, it is to notify the OS that there is work to be done.

When Windows loads, it nukes the DOS interrupt handler and replaces it with its own. Windows (not DOS) handles both hardware and software interrupts. The hardware is interacting with Windows directly, not DOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
by leech on Fri 9th Feb 2018 20:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I could be completely wrong about this (first version of Windows I ran extensively was 95, I only did troubleshooting for 3.1) but wasn't 3.1 a 16bit only operating system, and indeed was just a Shell on top of DOS? It wasn't until '95 that Fat32 was introduced (in it's buggy form). There were a few different DOS shells out at the time prior to Windows 3.x becoming more popular.

Edit: Yup, at least according to Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x

Edited 2018-02-09 20:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0
by Andre on Sat 10th Feb 2018 21:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Reminds me of OS/2 2.0"
Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

But any software that uses for example a sound card running on (MS-)DOS, has to handle the interrupts created by the sound card. That's the point, MS-DOS and compatibles are so basic in nature, that almost any hardware related stuff has to be done by the application itself.

Nowadays we are used to operating systems with drivers that handles all hardware, but MS-DOS was barely doing anything more then provide access to the file system and load applications.

Reply Parent Score: 1