<CT> 32 bit console applications on win32s

  • From: ivanva@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ivan Vavrecka)
  • To: calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 05:35:14 -0500 (EST)

manueluniversidad@xxxxxxxx wrote:

>I have installed win32s but only some GUI applications
>work, 32 bits console applications simply hang the
>system.  What utilities do you test?  Maybe they are
>16 bits.

This is good question, I had the same problem. I was trying to learn some
basics about NT 3.51, to have an alternative to Windows 95 and/or WFWG
(3.11) but I found out that DOS included in W9x was more than enough for my
own use. Some years ago I found DR-DOS 7.02/7.03, with W9x on FAT 16 was an
easy choice to have all my prefered tools running quite well, without too
much troubles. The standard DR=B4s boot choice is quite friendly. Of course
you may also use XOSL, Ranish, Zeleps, Lilo and many other tools to work yr
OWN way to have a MultiOS PC.

Win95 /first release/ is now also abandonware. I run both, Win 95 and
Win3.ll+Calmira running on the same MS-DOS (7.0), boot to command prompt,
and then I may choose GUI. Under W9x DOS I may call DR=B4s command.com, in
full screen it even may seem that W95 is not loaded at all. This may be done
with only some "extra hardware resources", but it keeps me aware that many
tasks could be done with "much less hardware". I feel quite well when some
friend gets a recycled PC, even with Hercules or CGA, with basic tools being
able to run without too much troubles.=20

My idea is to get a good choice of prefered tools running on DR-DOS + Win
3.11 + Calmira without the need of loading Win9x. This means that you get an
"only DOS" configuration, running mostly 16 bits. =20

Getting Recycled (at least) 386s with 8Mb RAM is not too hard (even here in
Argentina), and that=B4s enough for a small and wise W95 setup, and most
people feel more comfortable with this...so why not ? The MultiOS choice
might be worked out "starting" from there. (?)

FreeDos keeps growing. I guess that we will soon have a good alternative to
have a "new QDOS" to keep running many "oldies".=20

If I get a 16 bit utility that does the task...=BF why should I choose a 32
bit ? Of course, it is always good to try out alternatives, and let people
to make their own choices...isn=B4t this the way to Freedom ?

There are also many GUI alternatives that are being worked out by very nice
people, and as "alternatives to" get improved we will still have a lot of
time to get extra fun.

Doing a list of 32 bit appliances that have been tried out on Win32 might be
needed task, even with some "no warranty advice", but as I have still a lot
of 16 bit stuff that I haven=B4t tried out, I am not considering this as a
priority, I just run them, if they work on W95 but not in Win32s, I=B4ll try
to get a 16 bit replacement.

I am still wondering about the real need to have 32 bit tools if you can do
the same on 16 bit ?

In fact, as Windows 98 registered user, my prefered email tool is still an
old 16 Bit Eudora, I don=B4t have to care too much about all the "virus". I
have tried out the "new" MS and I don=B4t like them, I feel that dropping=
 out
DOS is not a "fair alternative".=20

I guess that very soon I will shift to have GNU/LInux as my prefered OS, but
I am little "lazy". I really don=B4t feel so bad using PCs my "own way".

For exmaple, I would be glad to get AbiWord to run on Win32s, but my skills
are not enough to join teams to be of real help for further development.=20

I welcome any further hints. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Ivan


--
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org



Other related posts:

  • » <CT> 32 bit console applications on win32s