Re: MS-DOS programs not running in XP Home

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Crusty \(-: Old B_at_stard :-\) (B_at_stard)
Date: 06/02/04 

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:25:48 -0400

When you update a system that is 6-7 years old with the latest O/S, you have to start from scratch. There is likely differences between the IE6 for NT4 (didn't even know they released it for NT4) and the IE6 for Windows XP. Therefore, the old program code is dumped. BTW, I would never attempt an "upgrade" from such an old operating system. I wasn't even aware it was a supported upgrade path. Just checked - XP Home IS NOT!

      Previous Version Windows XP
      Home Edition Windows XP
      Professional
      Windows 3.1 NO NO
      Any Evaluation Version NO NO
      Any Server Version* NO NO
      Windows 95 NO NO
      Windows 98/Windows 98 SE YES YES
      Windows Me YES YES
      Windows NTŪ Workstation 3.51 NO NO
      Windows NT Workstation 4.0 NO YES
      Windows 2000 Professional NO YES
      Windows XP Home Edition YES
      Windows XP Professional NO

Some DOS type programs just will not run under the Windows XP environment. Microsoft dropped a lot of legacy support for the purpose of stability. In my opinion, they have succeeded.

When I want to run a DOS program, I start up Virtual PC, boot up into my DOS 6.22 environment, and install/run the program from there. While it's running, I continue to use the PC for other tasks, such as e-mail etc. 

-- 
Regards:
Richard Urban
aka  Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
<FlitchGlitch@NOSpamISP.net> wrote in message news:tjjqb0pque71b35dgisns2l79h2rg7136q@4ax.com...
> Recent XP Home acquisition after upgrade from NT4 Sp6a to Win2K failed
> with multiple fatal system errors and lots of blue. Final straw was
> when the upgrade wrote IE5.(4 I think) over the IE6 I had downloaded
> just the previous week. Don't they check for these things?
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> I have a large number of legacy (i.e. old) MS-DOS programs constructed
> back in the eighties and early nineties which are absolutely
> essential. A rewrite would cost around two man years and really big
> bucks for the compiler so that's not an option.
> 
> But I did do some homework. I have a test program called
> "MD11xxxx.EXE" (the "xxxx" will be explained in a moment) which is a
> simple "Hello world" type program. In MS-DOS 5.2 the dialog would be
> (user actions and explanations in square brackets):
> 
> C> [Presuming the MD11xxxx.EXE is on the root directory of C:]
> C> [user enters] MD11xxxx
> Sucess MD11 Started - Press Enter to Terminate [MD11xxxx displays on
> console]
> [user presses enter]
> MD11 ended [MD11xxxx displays on console]
> C>
> 
> That's it! Very simple!
> 
> The "xxxx" is "PROT" or "REAL"; they're functionally identical and at
> the source code level word-for-word identical. If it's MD11PROT the
> program uses DPMI memory and can run in up to 16 meg of memory. If
> it's MD11REAL it runs in real memory (below 640K). This has nothing to
> do with any options chosen in the properties box; the programs are
> compiled, link-edited, and then bound to a stub loader which
> determines its memory use (this last step is the only difference). I
> don't really understand this but I could pull out and quote from the
> manual if it would help. The point is that while MD11REAL is only 38K
> and MD11PROT is 92K (i.e. both should be able to run in a 256K (that's
> K not M) machine) some of the other programs are much larger and must
> run in protected mode only.
> 
> Under MS-DOS the programs ran as above using full screen. IIRC under
> Win 3.1 they ran either in a DOS window or full screen depending on
> your use of ALT-ENTER. Same in NT4. Both ran in a box or if you really
> wanted to you could go to full screen. The norm was a box. Prior to
> conversion to Win2K I had my son test them on his Win2K machines, both
> a notebook and the desktop at work, and both the PROT and REAL
> versions ran just as they did in NT4. Well, because of the disaster in
> installing Win2K on my machine I didn't test on an XP machine and
> bingo, they don't work! Well, REAL sort of works, but PROT doesn't
> work at all.
> 
> For REAL, either double click on the file name, or enter it in the run
> box, and the whole screen immediately goes black, and then after a
> couple of heart-stopping moments, the correct dialog appears. I can
> continue in full screen or use ALT-ENTER to go to a standard DOS box.
> Either way an ENTER produces the appropriate "ended" message. It
> doesn't seem to matter what folder I run it from and the Properties
> Screen Usage button makes no difference either way. Nor does the
> setting of the Run parameter on the Program screen-- it currently says
> "minimized" but it doesn't matter what I change it to. Running in
> compatibility mode for any of the four optional systems has absolutely
> no effect either.
> 
> With PROT the settings in the properties screens have no effect at all
> (same as for REAL) nor do the parameters I enter for memory (do it
> intelligently or make them up at random -- I might as well save the
> wear-and-tear on my fingers). The behavior is slightly different
> though. It does open a DOS box but if you blink you'll miss it.
> Without any user intervention, the box expands to cover the entire
> screen and it becomes black (you actually see it rise up). Then
> there's a couple of seconds delay and then the desktop reappears as
> though nothing had happened. No wording, nothing.
> 
> As a matter of interest my other son runs Win 98 SE so I had him try
> them out. It works (or actually doesn't) the same as XP with the
> slight variance that in PROT mode, after the blanking (or black-ing)
> of the screen it waits. If you do nothing I presume it would just
> continue forever but if you hit enter as you would normally it returns
> to a normal DOS box, the heading of which says "MD11PROT Finished" but
> there's no text in the box itself.
> 
> My guess is that between NT/Win2K and the XP family they've changed
> the way they handle the console which is what I'm writing to. How do I
> get it back to the way it was under NT?
> 
> Just say the word and I'll post the AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS from
> MS-DOS or the Autoexec.NT and Config.NT from the NT era or the same
> named files from the XP era and if you tell me how (screen shot
> capture) I'll provide the Properties.
> 
> Oh, there are no TSR's nor direct hardware writes. These are serious
> text manipulation and storage programs; no games, no sound, no
> internet, no network...think accounting applications on a 360.
> 
> Tearing my hair out here...
> 
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS-DOS programs not running in XP Home
    ... I booted real 6.2 DOS from diskette on ... with the instructions not to use video memory mapping and SUCCESS! ... Unfortunately the solution only works for the simple test programs; ... >With PROT the settings in the properties screens have no effect at all ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Is MDI a sensible choice for this app? If not, what is?
    ... The old system has a number of screens, each of which can be accessed using ... could have one 'parent' form which had the list views etc on them, ... each screen could be a child form. ... A windows form application can be very different to a DOS one. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)
  • Re: Derivative effects.
    ... > windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops. ... Thats distro specific, not linux specific. ... > scrollbar setup screens, and anyone who has ever installed an os knows ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Taming VB
    ... DOS is event driven. ... forgotten the commands that I've used to send stuff to the ... VB will ask if you'd like to create an array or not. ... screens, forms, etc ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Tony Firshman: a public Thank You! :))
    ... This latter naming causes a lot of people to make the mistake of connecting that to DTR on the PC end. ... I also use a DOS version of the QL archive database program in a _small_ dos window on my 1680 x 1050 XP screen. ... and I do not want flashy screens - which is all a windows based system will offer. ... Hugs Tony! ...
    (comp.sys.sinclair)