win3.1 attempts :)

win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hi,

So, armed with a fresh copy of DOSEMU 1.1.5.7 and quite happy with the
changelog entry referring to windows, I set out to create a fresh
win3.1 setup on my machine to help with hacking WINE.

I have a kernel 2.4.23-pre4 and running Debian.

I tried both the WFW3.11 and the plain Win3.1.  For each of these, I
took the gdi.exe, user,exe, krnl386.exe, and mouse.drv from OS/2's
windows, compressed them (-> .ex_), and replaced the original files with
the OS/2 versions that use DPMI instead of blasted VCPI.

I put all of the windows installation disks into a single directory,
lredir'd from the file system.

I attempted the install with each of FreeDOS (kernel 1.1.28), DR-DOS
7.04, and MS-DOS 6.22 running under DOSEMU.  Each time I attempt to
install on D:\windows which is lredir'd to a dir under my home directory.

Here are the results and some notes:

WFW3.11
-------
FreeDOS:  Completes the initial file copy in DOS.  When it would go to
start windows to go to the next part of the installation, it crashes to
a dos prompt instead, sitting in D:\windows.  From there, one can issue
.\system\krnl386.exe to start windows. (Just \system\krnl386.exe doesn't
work; '\system' seems to be reserved to FreeDOS somehow.)  However, when
windows starts, it complains about not being installed all the way and
refuses to go further.  Through trial and error, I discovered that
issuing '.\system\krnl386.exe /?' somehow bypasses this and gets one
into the installation.

The installation is straightforward for the first part.  When it
actually goes to copy some files, you must have a disk in the A:
drive for some reason, or you will get an A.R.F error on screen, and
be unable to continue the session (close dosemu).  I tried to redirect
the floppy to /dev/null or /dev/zero, but then after the file copy, the
installer would have a GPF and hang the DOSEMU session.. Putting a
diskette in the A: drive for its "probe" gets us past the file copy...
and then the session hangs with some corrupted video. :(  The mouse can
still be moved around (you see the windows mouse moving) so the DOSEMU
isn't completely hung-up, but windows doesn't want to do anything more.

DR-DOS/MS-DOS:  Both of these end up the same way, so I'll put them
together.  Everything is exactly the same up until this point as FreeDOS
except the '.\system' thing.  Both of these DOS manage to complete the
file copy and move on to the printer setup, and afterwards the network
configuration.  However, after the network configuration, both of them
crash with the same GPF: WINSETUP.EXE caused a GPF in WINSETUP.EXE at
0001:113b.  The address is the same _every time_ the installation is
attempted.

If I quit the dosemu session and attempt to resume the already
half-completely installation, it is no use; it still crashes in the same
spot after the network setup.

Ok, so I give up on WFW3.11.  Perhaps the networking portion is giving
the dosemu some trouble.  So, I try good (bad?) old Win3.1.  All DOS
gives me the same results here.  The initial file copy completes, then
crashes to dos instead of starting windows.  Windows can be started
manually in the same way as before.  The initial configuration is ok, it
asks for a disk this time (I point it to the dir on the hdd), and
eventually it GPF at the same segment but a different offset this time
after the files are copied.

One difference: It complains about the mismatching of "system files",
which I guess means that it doesn't like the OS/2 windows files as much
as WFW3.11 did.

I want to stress that the crash addresses are not random occurrences;
they are repeatable and deterministic.  Only once in the whole night did
I have an unexplainable GPF while doing all these installations, which
is about in line with windows' track record anyway... :)

So, I hope this feedback helps somehow, please let me know if you have
any more questions.  I would like to be able to fully install WFW3.11
under dosemu, and if the bugs can be worked out, I'll create a HTML
walkthrough with screenshots.

See ya,

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

One other thing to mention: if the installation is aborted by selecting
an "Exit installation" or whatever button in the windows portion of the
setup; upon returning to DOS, there is some sort of fatal memory error
in only FreeDOS (DR-DOS and MSDOS are fine):

Invalid Opcode at 7272 E8DF 3293 EC83 0397 0A7E 7400 BE05 0001 02EB F631
CE81 10A2

I suppose this is a bug in FreeDOS but I thought it would be worth a
mention anyhow.  Again, like the GPF errors, this always remains the
same, as long as you are using the same version of windows to test it.

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Bart Oldeman]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Ryan Underwood wrote:

> One other thing to mention: if the installation is aborted by selecting
> an "Exit installation" or whatever button in the windows portion of the
> setup; upon returning to DOS, there is some sort of fatal memory error
> in only FreeDOS (DR-DOS and MSDOS are fine):
>
> Invalid Opcode at 7272 E8DF 3293 EC83 0397 0A7E 7400 BE05 0001 02EB F631
> CE81 10A2
>
> I suppose this is a bug in FreeDOS but I thought it would be worth a
> mention anyhow.  Again, like the GPF errors, this always remains the
> same, as long as you are using the same version of windows to test it.

I sometimes forget that not everyone knows (because in the FreeDOS lists
this topic comes up again and again without people checking the archives),
but Windows 3.x is known not to work on FreeDOS. It just requires too
much "undocumented DOS" that nobody bothered to implement so far.

The problems with \system\... are probably caused by comcom? If you use
freecom instead they should disappear.

As for what Stas was referring to, I guess it was an existing Windows 3.x
in native DOS.

As for myself, I don't own Win 3.x so I can't even say anything really
useful at all.

Bart

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Stas Sergeev]

Hello.

Ryan Underwood wrote:
> So, armed with a fresh copy of DOSEMU 1.1.5.7 and quite happy with
>  the changelog entry referring to windows, I set out to create a 
> fresh win3.1 setup on my machine to help with hacking WINE.
With a 16-bit windows? Probably not very usefull.

> For each of these, I took the gdi.exe, user,exe, krnl386.exe, and 
> mouse.drv from OS/2's windows, compressed them (-> .ex_), and 
> replaced the original files with the OS/2 versions
Interesting idea indeed, but I think you'll end
up mentioning that the installation is not
possible at all.

> The installation is straightforward for the first part.  When it 
> actually goes to copy some files, you must have a disk in the A: 
> drive for some reason, or you will get an A.R.F error on screen, 
> and be unable to continue the session (close dosemu).
I observed this either.
Happens also in a text-mode Win setup (setup.exe on
an installed instance) when you replace some components
that requires a file copying (but in a text mode you
at least can abort it), like changung a video driver
for example. So it might be a windows bug -
why should it touch the floppy for no good reason?
But probably it is also a bug in dosemu somewhere,
esp. if disabling the (real) floppy in cmos setup
and then installing windows from a real DOS doesn't
have that problem (haven't tried yet).

> The initial file copy completes, then crashes to dos instead of 
> starting windows.
That's the point where you have to give up. The
problem is that it (most likely) simply runs win.com,
which is trying dosx.exe or win386.exe - both
without any success.
Replacing win.com with winos2.com won't help either,
as it seems to be testing the OS/2 presence, and if
not found, also starts dosx.exe or win386.exe.
But you can probably write your own loader and replace
the win.com with it. Then it will probably work right.
That loader must do no more than just executing
"system\os2k386.exe", so it might be easy to try out.

> Windows can be started manually in the same way as before.
That's the wrong way, please use the winemu.bat instead,
or, even better, write your own .com loader (see above).

> The initial configuration is ok, it asks for a disk this time (I 
> point it to the dir on the hdd), and eventually it GPF at the same 
> segment but a different offset this time after the files are 
> copied.
That should probably be debugged out, although there
was no intention to support the windows installation
process, so not yet. If the idea about a hand-made
loader will work, then it is probably worth fixing
either and have a complete support for the installation
process.

> So, I hope this feedback helps somehow, please let me know if you 
> have any more questions.
Yes, let's aim for the already installed windows at
first to update the existing part of the docs.
The installation process should be a different piece
of docs I think.

> I would like to be able to fully install WFW3.11 under dosemu
That might be possible, but will probably require
a significant amount of work...

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hi,

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 10:04:00PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Ryan Underwood wrote:
> >So, armed with a fresh copy of DOSEMU 1.1.5.7 and quite happy with
> > the changelog entry referring to windows, I set out to create a 
> >fresh win3.1 setup on my machine to help with hacking WINE.
> With a 16-bit windows? Probably not very usefull.

WINE does run 16-bit applications to some degree of success. I have some
16-bit programs that it does not run however.

> >The initial file copy completes, then crashes to dos instead of 
> >starting windows.
> That's the point where you have to give up. The
> problem is that it (most likely) simply runs win.com,
> which is trying dosx.exe or win386.exe - both
> without any success.

But at this point, no win.com exists.  Should it?

> >Windows can be started manually in the same way as before.
> That's the wrong way, please use the winemu.bat instead,
> or, even better, write your own .com loader (see above).

Well, it is okay because the paths are correct when starting it from the
windows directory.  That is all the winemu.bat really fixes.

> >I would like to be able to fully install WFW3.11 under dosemu
> That might be possible, but will probably require
> a significant amount of work...

It seems very close as it is....

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Barnowl]

Ryan -
  To give you hope I have seen win95 at least once installed and run via dosemu. It was on a pre-0.9x release. don't ask , dus idon't remeber how it was done :(

Evan

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 07:35:58 -0500
Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> So, armed with a fresh copy of DOSEMU 1.1.5.7 and quite happy with the
> changelog entry referring to windows, I set out to create a fresh
> win3.1 setup on my machine to help with hacking WINE.
> 
> I have a kernel 2.4.23-pre4 and running Debian.
> 
> I tried both the WFW3.11 and the plain Win3.1.  For each of these, I
> took the gdi.exe, user,exe, krnl386.exe, and mouse.drv from OS/2's
> windows, compressed them (-> .ex_), and replaced the original files with
> the OS/2 versions that use DPMI instead of blasted VCPI.
> 
> I put all of the windows installation disks into a single directory,
> lredir'd from the file system.
> 
> I attempted the install with each of FreeDOS (kernel 1.1.28), DR-DOS
> 7.04, and MS-DOS 6.22 running under DOSEMU.  Each time I attempt to
> install on D:\windows which is lredir'd to a dir under my home directory.
> 
> Here are the results and some notes:
> 
> WFW3.11
> -------
> FreeDOS:  Completes the initial file copy in DOS.  When it would go to
> start windows to go to the next part of the installation, it crashes to
> a dos prompt instead, sitting in D:\windows.  From there, one can issue
> .\system\krnl386.exe to start windows. (Just \system\krnl386.exe doesn't
> work; '\system' seems to be reserved to FreeDOS somehow.)  However, when
> windows starts, it complains about not being installed all the way and
> refuses to go further.  Through trial and error, I discovered that
> issuing '.\system\krnl386.exe /?' somehow bypasses this and gets one
> into the installation.
> 
> The installation is straightforward for the first part.  When it
> actually goes to copy some files, you must have a disk in the A:
> drive for some reason, or you will get an A.R.F error on screen, and
> be unable to continue the session (close dosemu).  I tried to redirect
> the floppy to /dev/null or /dev/zero, but then after the file copy, the
> installer would have a GPF and hang the DOSEMU session.. Putting a
> diskette in the A: drive for its "probe" gets us past the file copy...
> and then the session hangs with some corrupted video. :(  The mouse can
> still be moved around (you see the windows mouse moving) so the DOSEMU
> isn't completely hung-up, but windows doesn't want to do anything more.
> 
> DR-DOS/MS-DOS:  Both of these end up the same way, so I'll put them
> together.  Everything is exactly the same up until this point as FreeDOS
> except the '.\system' thing.  Both of these DOS manage to complete the
> file copy and move on to the printer setup, and afterwards the network
> configuration.  However, after the network configuration, both of them
> crash with the same GPF: WINSETUP.EXE caused a GPF in WINSETUP.EXE at
> 0001:113b.  The address is the same _every time_ the installation is
> attempted.
> 
> If I quit the dosemu session and attempt to resume the already
> half-completely installation, it is no use; it still crashes in the same
> spot after the network setup.
> 
> Ok, so I give up on WFW3.11.  Perhaps the networking portion is giving
> the dosemu some trouble.  So, I try good (bad?) old Win3.1.  All DOS
> gives me the same results here.  The initial file copy completes, then
> crashes to dos instead of starting windows.  Windows can be started
> manually in the same way as before.  The initial configuration is ok, it
> asks for a disk this time (I point it to the dir on the hdd), and
> eventually it GPF at the same segment but a different offset this time
> after the files are copied.
> 
> One difference: It complains about the mismatching of "system files",
> which I guess means that it doesn't like the OS/2 windows files as much
> as WFW3.11 did.
> 
> I want to stress that the crash addresses are not random occurrences;
> they are repeatable and deterministic.  Only once in the whole night did
> I have an unexplainable GPF while doing all these installations, which
> is about in line with windows' track record anyway... :)
> 
> So, I hope this feedback helps somehow, please let me know if you have
> any more questions.  I would like to be able to fully install WFW3.11
> under dosemu, and if the bugs can be worked out, I'll create a HTML
> walkthrough with screenshots.
> 
> See ya,
> 
> -- 
> Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hey,

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:01:55AM -0500, Barnowl wrote:
> Ryan -
>   To give you hope I have seen win95 at least once installed and run via dosemu. It was on a pre-0.9x release. don't ask , dus idon't remeber how it was done :(

Win95?  With graphical desktop, or the command prompt only?
I thought the Win95 kernel is a VCPI client, in which case without
some heavy patching, I don't know how it would possibly work without
a virtualization or emulation of some sort.  If you are talking about
the Win95 DOS, I know that works with no problem... :)

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Stas Sergeev]

Hello.

Ryan Underwood wrote:
>> problem is that it (most likely) simply runs win.com, which is
>> trying dosx.exe or win386.exe - both without any success.
> But at this point, no win.com exists.  Should it?
No idea, but if not, then it starts
dosx.exe directly, which is very likely.
The work-around might be to replace
both dosx.exe and win386.exe with
os2k386.exe (also in their .ex_ form).
I just tried that and was able to use
win.com to run windows.
I think this should be an official way,
instead of winemu.bat. Replacing
krnl386.exe is not needed (and never was
I think).

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Barnowl]

Ryan-
 it was the GUI. what kind of magic was need I do not know. The fellow that did it was a one of those crackpot programers that liked to recode their Bios so they could over clock the CPU's better. Last I heard he and 3 others where hired by a company that built a branch office in the City they lived in because they did not want to move. So, it is very possible he did do some heavy patching.

Evan  

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:45:59 -0500
Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> wrote:

> 
> Hey,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:01:55AM -0500, Barnowl wrote:
> > Ryan -
> >   To give you hope I have seen win95 at least once installed and run via dosemu. It was on a pre-0.9x release. don't ask , dus idon't remeber how it was done :(
> 
> Win95?  With graphical desktop, or the command prompt only?
> I thought the Win95 kernel is a VCPI client, in which case without
> some heavy patching, I don't know how it would possibly work without
> a virtualization or emulation of some sort.  If you are talking about
> the Win95 DOS, I know that works with no problem... :)
> 
> -- 
> Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hi Evan,

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:28:49AM -0500, Barnowl wrote:
> Ryan-
> it was the GUI. what kind of magic was need I do not know. The
> fellow that did it was a one of those crackpot programers that liked
> to recode their Bios so they could over clock the CPU's better. Last I
> heard he and 3 others where hired by a company that built a branch
> office in the City they lived in because they did not want to move.
> So, it is very possible he did do some heavy patching.

Too bad they did not provide details of what was done -- that would be
an extremely interesting hack.  Let us know if you ever hear from him
again! :)

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

I found this M$-KB article related to Win3.1 memory usage:
http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q86/0/18.asp

It satisfied some curiosities of mine, maybe some others will benefit
from it.

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

hi,

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:06:51PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Ryan Underwood wrote:
> >>problem is that it (most likely) simply runs win.com, which is
> >>trying dosx.exe or win386.exe - both without any success.
> >But at this point, no win.com exists.  Should it?
> No idea, but if not, then it starts
> dosx.exe directly, which is very likely.

No win.com, dosx.exe, or win386.exe exists after the first stage of
installation in dosemu.  I just verified this.

Look at the function at 014:11f7 in setup.exe.  It pushes the string
"winexec" and "krnl386.exe" among other things (including a pointer that
a return code is written to), and then calls a functino, which I guess
does some sprintf and tries to exec the string.  if it fails, it pushes
a string "winexec" "dosx.exe" and calls the same function.  if that
fails, it exits the caller func then.

What is this "winexec" and does it exist in a normall installation after
the first (DOS-based) portion is complete?  It doesn't exist in mine,
installed through dosemu.

BTW, WFW only runs in enhanced mode, correct?  Why would it need
dosx.exe in that case ?  Does dosx.exe starting WFW cause it to run in
enhanced mode anyway?

----

OT: I start up my favorite code viewer, and I get the following:
http://dbz.icequake.net/share/dosemu-ida.png

I Was using a default 1.1.5.7 config with very few thins uncommented.
Apparently $_X_font = "vga" is necessary to be uncommented for this to
work right (which it does after uncommenting that), but I thought "vga"
was the default font to use under X if it is available?  At least, I
don't remember having to set that option before, but my memory may be
wrong.


-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Stas Sergeev]

Hello.

Ryan Underwood wrote:
>> No idea, but if not, then it starts dosx.exe directly, which is 
>> very likely.
> No win.com, dosx.exe, or win386.exe exists after the first stage of
>  installation in dosemu.  I just verified this.
And I just verified that replacing dosx.ex_
with os2k386.ex_ makes the install to go as
far as a graphical screen, under dosemu, just
as I expected. I have to interrupt it at that
stage - no time for experiments now. Probably
at a week-end.

> Look at the function at 014:11f7 in setup.exe.  It pushes the 
> string "winexec" and "krnl386.exe" among other things
What's the use? I just tried what I suggested,
and it seems to work (at a first glance at
least). Trying something before assuming that
it doesn't work, can sometimes save some work:)

> BTW, WFW only runs in enhanced mode, correct?
Via win.com at least - yes. That's why I still
think replacing dosx.exe with os2k386.exe is OK,
while replacing the win386.exe is not - it will
always force the winos2 mode, which is not good.

> Why would it need dosx.exe in that case ?
It can be started directly.

> Does dosx.exe starting WFW cause it to run in enhanced mode anyway?
I don't think so, but might be trivial to figure.
Just look into "Help->About" in a Program
Manager to find out.

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:11:42PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Ryan Underwood wrote:
> >>No idea, but if not, then it starts dosx.exe directly, which is 
> >>very likely.
> >No win.com, dosx.exe, or win386.exe exists after the first stage of
> > installation in dosemu.  I just verified this.
> And I just verified that replacing dosx.ex_
> with os2k386.ex_ makes the install to go as
> far as a graphical screen, under dosemu, just
> as I expected. I have to interrupt it at that
> stage - no time for experiments now. Probably
> at a week-end.

Yes, I see that it does.  However, using the os2k386 in place of dosx in
the install files seems to cause dosemu to have some filesystem-related
problems.  The first error is that it is "unable to update registration
info", and then when going to file copy, there are lots of "Write error:
FOO.BAR   The file is write protected.  Error Code #210"

It is the same with all 3 MS-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS.
> 
> >Look at the function at 014:11f7 in setup.exe.  It pushes the 
> >string "winexec" and "krnl386.exe" among other things
> What's the use? I just tried what I suggested,
> and it seems to work (at a first glance at
> least). Trying something before assuming that
> it doesn't work, can sometimes save some work:)

I do not see harm, nor stupidity, in at least attempting to understand
how something works before making shots in the dark.

> >Does dosx.exe starting WFW cause it to run in enhanced mode anyway?
> I don't think so, but might be trivial to figure.
> Just look into "Help->About" in a Program
> Manager to find out.

To do that, one would need a working installation, which you have and I
do not. :)

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Stas Sergeev]

Hello.

Ryan Underwood wrote:
> Yes, I see that it does.  However, using the os2k386 in place of 
> dosx in the install files seems to cause dosemu to have some 
> filesystem-related problems.
Just tried under pure DOS - the same
problems. So I suspect it is the os2k386
that is buggy at that point.

>> least). Trying something before assuming that it doesn't work, 
>> can sometimes save some work:)
> I do not see harm, nor stupidity, in at least attempting to 
> understand how something works before making shots in the dark.
The harm is a waste of time only.
And btw, this was not a shot in the dark.
As both that windows (3.1 and wfwg) are
using a standard mode during the install,
replacing the dosx.exe was the most
obvious thing it seems.

>> Just look into "Help->About" in a Program Manager to find out.
> To do that, one would need a working installation, which you have
Not any more. I just tried the installation
under a real DOS (to see about the "filesystem
problems"), and, as I am half asleep after
work, I ocasionally deleted it instead of
the directory created during that test install.
I still have the win3.11 distro somewhere in
the streammer tape, but there were the whole
lot of the old goodies, winword6 with a bunch
of my (and other's) old documents, and many other
not very important but still interesting things.
Now as this all is finally gone, I suddenly lost any
interest in running windows under dosemu. I
still have the 3.1 installed for testing, but
without the winword and everything this is not funny
any more...

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:08:04PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 
> The harm is a waste of time only.
> And btw, this was not a shot in the dark.
> As both that windows (3.1 and wfwg) are
> using a standard mode during the install,
> replacing the dosx.exe was the most
> obvious thing it seems.

Maybe obvious to someone who knew they are using standard mode during
the install only. :P
I thought WFW3.11 had _no_ standard mode whatsoever.

> >>Just look into "Help->About" in a Program Manager to find out.
> >To do that, one would need a working installation, which you have
> Not any more. I just tried the installation
> under a real DOS (to see about the "filesystem
> problems"), and, as I am half asleep after
> work, I ocasionally deleted it instead of
> the directory created during that test install.

Damn!  Well, I suppose I'll get to be the one to look into this problem
further.

Later,

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Justin Zygmont]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Ryan Underwood wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 10:04:00PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > >So, armed with a fresh copy of DOSEMU 1.1.5.7 and quite happy with
> > > the changelog entry referring to windows, I set out to create a 
> > >fresh win3.1 setup on my machine to help with hacking WINE.
> > With a 16-bit windows? Probably not very usefull.
> 
> WINE does run 16-bit applications to some degree of success. I have some
> 16-bit programs that it does not run however.

if you want, you could try WABI, I have it and it ran most 16 bit apps 
quickly and easily, I was interested in it when it was new, always 
wondered where they were going to go with it, only to see sun drop it.

http://solarflow.dyndns.org/wabi

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Ryan Underwood]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Justin Zygmont wrote:
> > WINE does run 16-bit applications to some degree of success. I have some
> > 16-bit programs that it does not run however.
> 
> if you want, you could try WABI, I have it and it ran most 16 bit apps 
> quickly and easily, I was interested in it when it was new, always 
> wondered where they were going to go with it, only to see sun drop it.
> 
> http://solarflow.dyndns.org/wabi

Was the source code ever made available for this?  At some point Caldera
was porting it to linux, but I can't find much about it now...

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Re: win3.1 attempts :)

[Justin Zygmont]

that's because they were forced to abruptly discontinue it, most likely 
under orders from Sun.  Sun has it locked and buried deep, as well as all 
the 32 bit development they were doing to support win95 which never 
saw the light of day.  I have it if anyone wants.


On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Ryan Underwood wrote:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Justin Zygmont wrote:
> > > WINE does run 16-bit applications to some degree of success. I have some
> > > 16-bit programs that it does not run however.
> > 
> > if you want, you could try WABI, I have it and it ran most 16 bit apps 
> > quickly and easily, I was interested in it when it was new, always 
> > wondered where they were going to go with it, only to see sun drop it.
> > 
> > http://solarflow.dyndns.org/wabi
> 
> Was the source code ever made available for this?  At some point Caldera
> was porting it to linux, but I can't find much about it now...
> 
>