[ros-dev] Core developer

[Wesley Parish]

MS Win 3.0 as largely a DOS extender written large, with a graphical  
interface.

MS Win 3.1 had a bit more of the 32-bit disk access and the like;  
iirc it made better use of protected memory - though not much. It  
liked crashing.

MS Win 3.1 Windows For Workgroups was a lot closer to a 32-bit  
system, though it - much like the remainder of the Win 3.x/9.x lineup  
- relied on DOS as a boot loader and thunked its merry way through  
int21h and the like.

MS Win NT was built on a different model, taken almost completely  
lock-stock-and-barrel from DEC's VMS and related systems. NT didn't  
need DOS - in fact, it tended to crash badly written Win/DOS  
applications.

I expect DOSBox will run Win3.x/9.x apps without too much trouble,  
provided they can access suitable DLLs.

On 8/05/2012, at 10:02 PM, Sven Barth wrote:

> Am 08.05.2012 11:47, schrieb Andrew Faulds:
>> Ah, I see. Windows 3.1 was a 32-bit kernel running 16-bit  
>> applications, how odd.
>>
>
> Ehm... no. Windows 3.x was a 16-bit system though it needed the  
> protected mode to run (to perform 32-bit disk access, etc.).
>
> Only Windows 95 was a (more) true 32-bit system (like Windows NT  
> 3.1 was already).
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
>> On 8 May 2012 10:37, Sven Barth<pascaldragon at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>> Am 08.05.2012 11:33, schrieb Andrew Faulds:
>>>
>>>> Oh, I didn't think of that. Windows 3.x applications run in NTVDM?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes as they are basically "DOS applications" as well. Only  
>>> Windows 95
>>> introduced a difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev at reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev at reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev