Alt-Enter doesn’t Window DOS graphics in XP, but worked in NT and Win2000 (2006)
alt.msdos.narkive.com
alt.msdos.narkive.com
https://reactos.org/ implements Windows roughly akin to 2003; dunno if that would be able to re-create this issue, but might be worth trying?
Call them what they are, fucking fascists
https://blog.stuffedcow.net/2015/08/win9x-tlb-invalidation-b...
Turning off nested paging seems to work around it.
Common misconception, maybe even MS-originated FUD. WINE on 64-bit Linux supports 16-bit Windows apps perfectly well.
...and NTVDMx64 --- based on MS' own leaked Windows code! --- is probably the best evidence that it has nothing to do with hardware limitations and everything to do with where MS wants to force users to go.
Huh ? Wine on 64 bit linux supports only 64 bits apps. Same on 32 bits linux, but here supports also 16 bits apps. For 32 bits support on 64 linux you need 32 bits linux libraries.
EDIT: More details at https://www.codeweavers.com/support/wiki/Diag/BrokenLDT16 . I suppose if you run 16-bit programs inside 32-bit WINE on 64-bit Linux, you wouldn't be able to get real interop (eg drag-and-drop) with a 64-bit windows program separately running under 64-bit WINE?
On the other hand, emulating the CPU entirely is feasible, and MS has the code, as the leak shows. And apparently newer Intel CPUs enabled V86 again.
** No. They would be very happy if everyone just forgot about DOS and all its wonderful programs & utilities so that all would use their monopolistic system. "
Some stories never change.
There was a patent lawsuit in the 90s about drive compression software in DOS 6.2. It was yanked in .21, and re-added in .22 with some changes.
It was amazing that VGA games (for the most part) worked, and fun to have multiple DOS text programs running and switching between them.
For those that didn’t experience it: Alt-Tab also worked in full screen text mode. No icons or window thumbnails, just window titles with the “focus rectangle” represented by a line of reversed background/foreground colours, but you could switch to another app or cancel out of the application switcher without ever leaving text mode.
The fact that DOSBox is at least 17 years old?
The fact that the "just run Linux, it'll work there if you figure out the right command line syntax that I'm not going to tell you" pattern is that old? (Richard Bonner, 4th comment from the end)
XP unified the Win9x and Windows NT codebases, and both had to compromise a bit. The VxD driver model officially went away; more bits were added to the WDM model to enable better multimedia support than W2K and previous had.
This whole thread is an instance of the XKCD Workflow: https://xkcd.com/1172/
Making graphical DOS apps windowed never worked in NT (the very first post admits that this caused the graphics to freeze) but this user decided to push on stretching the bug to capture screenshots for reports (something that was never an option in DOS either) and was surprised when this edge case that very clearly was never supported stopped working between major versions.
I hesitate to qualify myself as a good hacker, but for me personally I enjoy reading about the history of computing - especially in the contexts of what people found important at any given time.
I recall 72 being more common. This left room for a few nested quotes (indented each level by >[space]) before needing to reflow the text to fit in 78, the 78 coming from back in the days of text terminals 80 characters wide (leaving two for a border or for formatting marks or for other decoration/indicators).
Maybe that was a more localised thing (I'm remembering it from guidelines for mailing lists and/or Usenet groups) and a flat 78 character guideline was more usual around the wider internet?
It's especially silly considering Microsoft had already switched to UCS-2 in the OS long before XP came out and UCS-2 also has the standard quotes in its set.
Complaining that programs aren't inserting unnecessary line feeds anymore is just silly, though. DOS needed those characters because of technical limitations and if people aren't working around your computer's arbitrary limitations anymore, that's really your problem more than anyone else's.
Their website (http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/) is still up and is actively being maintained. I wonder if the author still uses DOS every day...
One could argue that it was supposed to, because otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to write the code to do it (and knowing what that code has to do, it wasn't a trivial thing either.)
XP unified the Win9x and Windows NT codebases
If anything, that should've enhanced the functionality since 9x's DOS windows are significantly more performant, and the "graphical DOS box" has been around in one form or another since Windows/386:
https://gekk.info/articles/dosapps.html
Here's a demonstration of that, running Windows 2.03 (in CGA mode) inside Windows 3.1:
What there was such a problem back in the days. THere are people there who are full fledged adults yet don't know how that was hecause they are born after W2K GA.
What Bonner's site URLs still work and the content is at the same addresses.
What some people responding with 'just use Linux' even if nobody asked them was an issue even then.
The fact that it does not autoupdate itself every 2 weeks with breaking changes ? The fact that the "UI" hasn't changed ?
>The fact that DOSBox is at least 17 years old?
This is a sign of quality. Firefox is 2 weeks old and already wants to update /s