Re: Windows 3.1 Support

[Julius Schwartzenberg <julius@zgod.cjb.net>]

Stas Sergeev schreef:
>> What versions are currently tested?
>> (Both 3.1, 3.11 and Workgroups, non-Workgroups?)
> 
> 3.11 and "Windows for Workgroups" is
> the same thing AFAIK.
> Both 3.1 and 3.11 are known to work.
I also used to think this, till I came across disk images of Windows 
3.11 and Windows for Workgroups 3.1 on Usenet.
I still had the ones for Windows for Workgroups 3.1 on my comp, so I'd 
thought I'd try them out. Here are some screenshots I created a couple 
of minutes ago using VMware:
http://middelvinger.student.utwente.nl/screenshots/
I also came across this page from MS:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q114301/

>> Are you sure there aren't any extra advantages with this?
> 
> I don't know. People seem to not like
> WinOS2, but as for me there are no
> advantages in avoiding it at all.
> It may even be a little faster as it
> doesn't need the virtualization of LDT.
I think the reason many people don't like it, is because it seemed less 
compatible (while that may not be true, since the problems weren't with 
WinOS/2 but with Dosemu).
Other reasons might be that you would need to get os2win31.zip and mess 
with some stuff before it works.
There might also be people that would like to use Windows 3.1 in a 
situation, where licenses and stuff is important. (And you need an OS/2 
license according to the Dosemu documentation for WinOS/2.)

>> I cannot run
>> MS-DOS programs from within WinOS/2 for example. I always thought this
>> was a WinOS/2 limitation.
> 
> It appears not. This is the limitation
> of both FreeDOS and dosemu. FreeDOS can
> be improved, but dosemu will have to
> provide the whole lot of VxD code to
> allow the concurrent DOS sessions. Such
> a code is not in Wine, neither it is
> documented. So unless someone is to
> invest some *real* work into it (like
> Win4Lin guys did), I'd say there are no
> hopes. But hey, that's silly:) You can
> just start multiple xdosemu sessions
> and get much more reliable environment
> that the one of Win3.1.
Hmm, yes this indeed isn't really necessairy. I'm using PC DOS 2k 
instead of FreeDOS btw.

>> Also I tried to install a game in MS Windows at some point 
>> (Phantasmagoria) and it didn't work. I also couldn't play the videos 
>> that came with it.
> 
> There are many things to improve in
> windows support. You may start filling
> up the bug reports on it, but right
> now there are still many known problems
> to work out, so the bugs will have to
> wait (on BTS).
Win32s support would be really nice btw, because many newer applications 
seem to depend on it.
Hopefully I'll have a clean Windows install soon in Dosemu and I'll be 
able to do some testing.

>>> move towards win95 support, but nothing more.
>>
>> That would be really great of course :)
>> Dosemu would be pretty similar to Win4Lin then I think.
> 
> Win4Lin did a great work. Dosemu is
> unlikely to catch up. But running win95
> with the very limited capabilities would
> also be nice.
> Btw, it may be possible already I think.
> AFAIK some very early Chicago betas were
> able to boot in 3.1 mode (by executing
> win31.exe IIRC). Later the kernel was
> reworked and the 3.1 mode was abandonned.
> I think this may even run under dosemu.
> But getting such a Windows looks problematic
> these days.
> 
>> Hmm, was it also possible with WinOS/2 to play videos?
> 
> Depends on dosemu version I think. Since
> 1.2.2 it might be possible.
Video for Windows currently seems to hang for me with Dosemu 1.3.1. That 
might be because I removed some stuff from some ini at some point 
because I got errors about it though. I've also installed other junk in 
my Windows install, which is why it is kind of messy.
That Chicago stuff sounds very interesting. I've seen it several times 
on Usenet, so I'll watch out for it :)
What I also always found weird was that the setup of Windows 98 uses the 
Windows 3.1 style (only with different colors). I'm wondering how much 
of Windows 3.1 is actually still in there.

Julius