From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stas Sergeev Subject: Re: win3.1 attempts :) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:11:42 +0400 Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3F6F2D4E.7050306@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org 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.