7 ms·

Ex-Caldera dev describes lost “WinBolt” Win9x-capable version of DR-DOS (2007)

147 points by Lammy 5y ago

karmakaze 5y ago
> Actually, there is a reason why I am writing this on a dual-core machine in a Windows 98 SE window... ;-) Nice. Win 98 SE isn't all that old (roughly the same Win32 API that evolved into Windows 10) but it does still evoke that retrocomputing vibe. Has me wondering if there's another system that I could still use along similar lines. Needing internet and a web browser certainly narrows down the list fast. I don't know that the Commander X-16 could do it, though not an actual retro OS. Or perhaps Mac System 7.
- guessbest 5y ago
  Windows 98 SE was not only quite fast but also very stable. I preferred it greatly to Windows 2k. There were unfortunately nothing to be gained in Windows ME so that's why some people were still running it in 2007 such as at the link. Speed wise Windows 2k and Linux were comparable in speed and stability in 2003 on the 90's pentium machines, but Windows 98 SE was blazing fast.
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    Yep Win98 SE was a local maxima for performance/stability. For the WinNT line, I used 3.51 for as long as I could, before giving in to Win2k and later for laptop support.
    - nonesuchluck 5y ago
      Wait, can you expand on that? Was NT4 less stable? I know you already had the 32bit app compatibility, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who preferred the Win3 UI to Win95.
      - gattilorenz 5y ago
        On NT 3.51 you can install the NewShell update and the UI becomes more like Win95
      - karmakaze 5y ago
        I had no problems with the Win3 UI and was never into using themes, choosing background/window trim colour was fine. The Win2k one looked newer. The only real benefit was that there were some new admin views. I mean look at modern file/web browsers, they don't have much in the way of raised/sunken UI elements. I was a developer so cared more about performance and stability. How my code editor windows looked didn't matter. Memory being taken up by a fatter UI implementation that slows things down counts against it. Edit: and yes, win2k/NT4 was less stable. They moved the graphics subsystem into kernel space where as NT up to 3.5.1 had graphics as a separate service. And you can imagine that a lot of the bugs/edge cases in Windows is in the GUI and drivers.
  - retrac 5y ago
    I suppose it depended what you were doing. You couldn't beat Windows 98 for how light it was on RAM. Probably the fastest for DirectX games and so on vs. the competition. Fastest to boot and open up a word processor. But I have the distinct recollection of it being excruciating for multitasking. Towards the end of Windows 98's life you might ask it to run a video player, a game, a chat client, a browser and a word processor all at once. Stability disappeared. So did responsiveness. Windows 2000 (or Linux) handled heavy load much better.
    - Teknoman117 5y ago
      I ended up choosing Win 98 SE for my "retro" gaming computer. I use it to go back and play the games from my childhood that broke on NT based Windows releases. When it came up was probably the first time in a decade or more that I'd heard the click/buzz of a floppy drive in person.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  I still do a good portion of my creative writing in Microsoft Word 97.
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    I have a genuine disk copy of Office '97 around here somewhere...
- retrac 5y ago
  Your best bet may be a Unix workstation. IRIX in particular still gets modern software ported to it sometimes: https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/cd5x78/sgi_irix_gets_a_new_browser_after_14_years_retro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/cd5x78...
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Mac System 7 is probably no good - the modern web is largely unintelligable to the contemporary browsers. I had a Mac Plus for a while hooked up to a Gatorbox that had internet access, and the version of Netscape(?) on there couldn't even load the Google home page. The Amiga guys are pretty fanatical, might be worth investigating that. Old Sun workstations are too feeble to run a modern web browser. Never had an SGI (always wanted one) but again has a devoted fan base. I think if you need modern but want retro, configure a Linux with the Motif Window Manager and enjoy that CDE, post Unix wars goodness while still being able to run a bit of modern stuff.
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    I prefer the aesthetics of Sun Open Look or NeXTSTEP which doesn't get carried away with as many levels of visual depth. WindowMaker is a pretty good NeXT desktop experience.
- fsiefken 5y ago
  dillo might run
  - fsiefken 5y ago
    or this fairly recent one https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/k-meleon-74-windows-9x-edition.html https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/k-meleon-74...
stuaxo 5y ago
Surely this is old enough now that they could surface the fork on an OS / DOS enthusiast site, the same thing for Apple Star Trek (also on DRDOS).
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Fascinating. Gives extra context/colour to DR-GEM running on TOS, and later ties of codenames Borg (OS/2 2.1) and Ferengi (OS/2 for Windows).
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    TOS was GEM + GEMDOS on 68k, which was really a kind of ... rewrite of CP/M 68k, but with DOS-ish additions. Many of the internals and source code look identical/similar to CP/M 68k. (GEM itself had its genesis with Lee Jay Lorenzen moving from Xerox (in Dallas, not PARC) to DR. At Xerox he'd tried to float the idea of a Xerox Star-like interface on PC class hardware. He ended up doing that once he moved to DR, as GEM. It has Mac influences, for sure, but it was their own creation.) http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.deltasoft.com/downloads-gemworld.htm http://www.deltasoft.com/downloads-gemworld.htm Kind of wonder how much of that DNA made it into DR-DOS and Concurrent DOS.
- runjake 5y ago
  > the same thing for Apple Star Trek (also on DRDOS) Huh! I was unaware that Project Star Trek sat upon DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project#Architecture
agumonkey 5y ago
https://archive.is/nVHPi https://archive.is/nVHPi the only mention of lost is "lost hope" .. I'm not sure he lost the source, or maybe I misread.
chungy 5y ago
> No, as Microsoft has artificially tied MS-DOS 7.xx and Windows 4.xx together and it is not trivial to pry these components apart. This is a half-truth, due to the word "artificially" -- it implies nefarious intent by Microsoft to not let you run Windows 9x on just any old DOS. Microsoft determined with Windows 95 that Windows would be their primary operating system, and while it was still architecturally similar to the older 1.x-3.x versions that would install and run on top of MS-DOS (including various versions of which), that both components would be improved by developing them together. The original Windows 95's version of MS-DOS ("7.0") added support for logical block addressing and long file names in FAT. The second one in 95B ("MS-DOS 7.1") added support for FAT32. The Windows Me version ("MS-DOS 8.0")... well ok I don't really know of any practical changes aside from no longer parsing config.sys/autoexec.bat. Still there were obvious compatibility and practical advantages to developing them in tandem. Massive improvements in the file system were feasible in the era that 2GB and larger disks started appearing on the market, simplified boot process as it was assumed that Windows would always be expected, some data structures could be rearranged or axed in order to allow Windows itself to manage resources.
- fredoralive 5y ago
  There is also an elephant in the room with all these questions about the messy interactions between Windows 9x and DOS - Windows NT. By 1995 Microsoft’s long view of the future of the PC OS did not involve DOS. Even before NT we had OS/2 as well. If Microsoft had been “nicer” they could have made it easier for DR to use their DOS to load a GUI that mostly acted as its own OS and bypassed DOS once loaded, but what happens once they get to XP? (Of course DR / Novell kinda knew this hence stuff like Star Trek, but whatever DR’s vision of the future was never came).
- laumars 5y ago
  It’s not as clear cut as that. There was a non-Microsoft DOS (might have been Dr DOS but I can’t recall specifically) that would boot Windows 95. Then Microsoft released an update that caused Windows 95 to fail with an vague error message intending to deceive users into thinking there was a technical limitation in other DOSs that prevented Windows from booting. Yet it was later proved that limitation didn’t exist and all Windows was doing was checking if it was MS-DOS, and if not returning an error. If I recall correctly this case even went to court.
alerighi 5y ago
I don't get why you would really want to run Windows 9x with another DOS. It was only used as a bootloader, when Windows started of course the Windows kernel would get full control of the system, leaving MS-DOS only resident for compatibility with legacy software, and nothing mode. What difference could it make to run a better version of DOS on Windows 9x machines?
- jchw 5y ago
  Windows 9x actually does use MS-DOS for more than just a bootloader. The post describes it in better detail than I actually understand, but they do also briefly list the advantages in the second line of the post from the link, too: > Yes, it is possible to run Windows 9x ontop of DR-DOS. And yes, it has several advantages over using MS-DOS (f.e. smaller memory footprint and much more advanced relocation methods, not only resulting in more free DOS memory, but also in more free Windows resources; better configurability and therefore higher flexibility, more advanced utilities).
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    While the merits of combining DOS and Windows is economically debatable, the memory layout of 95 is really well-thought out and DR really didn't realise that certain programs would just "slide" out of their allocated memory range even theoretically no programs should do that (there is already a warning in beta versions that has tighter memory layouts, and DR conveniently forgot how changing the DPMI implementation, even though it should just work, actually isn't). Microsoft is simply trying to minimise problematic applications at the expense of memory consumption.
cratermoon 5y ago
Ah, the memories. Back in the days when Microsoft could be openly and blatantly anti-competitive and nobody really cared because it was just perceived as a nerd-fight outside of tech circles. It was just a coincidence that MS decided to make some changes to Win95 that made it depend on things in MS-DOS that DR-DOS didn't have, but then when DR-DOS caught up, they still had Win9x complain about "incompatible" DOS. But somehow MS managed to maintain backwards compatibility with SimCity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281932 https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii-chicken-and-egg-problems/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...

147 points by Lammy 5y ago

> Actually, there is a reason why I am writing this on a dual-core machine in a Windows 98 SE window... ;-) Nice. Win 98 SE isn't all that old (roughly the same Win32 API that evolved into Windows 10) but it does still evoke that retrocomputing vibe. Has me wondering if there's another system that I could still use along similar lines. Needing internet and a web browser certainly narrows down the list fast. I don't know that the Commander X-16 could do it, though not an actual retro OS. Or perhaps Mac System 7.

guessbest 5y ago
Windows 98 SE was not only quite fast but also very stable. I preferred it greatly to Windows 2k. There were unfortunately nothing to be gained in Windows ME so that's why some people were still running it in 2007 such as at the link. Speed wise Windows 2k and Linux were comparable in speed and stability in 2003 on the 90's pentium machines, but Windows 98 SE was blazing fast.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Yep Win98 SE was a local maxima for performance/stability. For the WinNT line, I used 3.51 for as long as I could, before giving in to Win2k and later for laptop support.
  - nonesuchluck 5y ago
    Wait, can you expand on that? Was NT4 less stable? I know you already had the 32bit app compatibility, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who preferred the Win3 UI to Win95.
    - gattilorenz 5y ago
      On NT 3.51 you can install the NewShell update and the UI becomes more like Win95
    - karmakaze 5y ago
      I had no problems with the Win3 UI and was never into using themes, choosing background/window trim colour was fine. The Win2k one looked newer. The only real benefit was that there were some new admin views. I mean look at modern file/web browsers, they don't have much in the way of raised/sunken UI elements. I was a developer so cared more about performance and stability. How my code editor windows looked didn't matter. Memory being taken up by a fatter UI implementation that slows things down counts against it. Edit: and yes, win2k/NT4 was less stable. They moved the graphics subsystem into kernel space where as NT up to 3.5.1 had graphics as a separate service. And you can imagine that a lot of the bugs/edge cases in Windows is in the GUI and drivers.
- retrac 5y ago
  I suppose it depended what you were doing. You couldn't beat Windows 98 for how light it was on RAM. Probably the fastest for DirectX games and so on vs. the competition. Fastest to boot and open up a word processor. But I have the distinct recollection of it being excruciating for multitasking. Towards the end of Windows 98's life you might ask it to run a video player, a game, a chat client, a browser and a word processor all at once. Stability disappeared. So did responsiveness. Windows 2000 (or Linux) handled heavy load much better.
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    I ended up choosing Win 98 SE for my "retro" gaming computer. I use it to go back and play the games from my childhood that broke on NT based Windows releases. When it came up was probably the first time in a decade or more that I'd heard the click/buzz of a floppy drive in person.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I still do a good portion of my creative writing in Microsoft Word 97.
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  I have a genuine disk copy of Office '97 around here somewhere...
retrac 5y ago
Your best bet may be a Unix workstation. IRIX in particular still gets modern software ported to it sometimes: https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/cd5x78/sgi_irix_gets_a_new_browser_after_14_years_retro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/cd5x78...
smackeyacky 5y ago
Mac System 7 is probably no good - the modern web is largely unintelligable to the contemporary browsers. I had a Mac Plus for a while hooked up to a Gatorbox that had internet access, and the version of Netscape(?) on there couldn't even load the Google home page. The Amiga guys are pretty fanatical, might be worth investigating that. Old Sun workstations are too feeble to run a modern web browser. Never had an SGI (always wanted one) but again has a devoted fan base. I think if you need modern but want retro, configure a Linux with the Motif Window Manager and enjoy that CDE, post Unix wars goodness while still being able to run a bit of modern stuff.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  I prefer the aesthetics of Sun Open Look or NeXTSTEP which doesn't get carried away with as many levels of visual depth. WindowMaker is a pretty good NeXT desktop experience.
fsiefken 5y ago
dillo might run
- fsiefken 5y ago
  or this fairly recent one https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/k-meleon-74-windows-9x-edition.html https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/k-meleon-74...

stuaxo 5y ago

Surely this is old enough now that they could surface the fork on an OS / DOS enthusiast site, the same thing for Apple Star Trek (also on DRDOS).

karmakaze 5y ago
Fascinating. Gives extra context/colour to DR-GEM running on TOS, and later ties of codenames Borg (OS/2 2.1) and Ferengi (OS/2 for Windows).
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  TOS was GEM + GEMDOS on 68k, which was really a kind of ... rewrite of CP/M 68k, but with DOS-ish additions. Many of the internals and source code look identical/similar to CP/M 68k. (GEM itself had its genesis with Lee Jay Lorenzen moving from Xerox (in Dallas, not PARC) to DR. At Xerox he'd tried to float the idea of a Xerox Star-like interface on PC class hardware. He ended up doing that once he moved to DR, as GEM. It has Mac influences, for sure, but it was their own creation.) http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.deltasoft.com/downloads-gemworld.htm http://www.deltasoft.com/downloads-gemworld.htm Kind of wonder how much of that DNA made it into DR-DOS and Concurrent DOS.
runjake 5y ago
> the same thing for Apple Star Trek (also on DRDOS) Huh! I was unaware that Project Star Trek sat upon DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project#Architecture

agumonkey 5y ago

https://archive.is/nVHPi https://archive.is/nVHPi the only mention of lost is "lost hope" .. I'm not sure he lost the source, or maybe I misread.

chungy 5y ago

> No, as Microsoft has artificially tied MS-DOS 7.xx and Windows 4.xx together and it is not trivial to pry these components apart. This is a half-truth, due to the word "artificially" -- it implies nefarious intent by Microsoft to not let you run Windows 9x on just any old DOS. Microsoft determined with Windows 95 that Windows would be their primary operating system, and while it was still architecturally similar to the older 1.x-3.x versions that would install and run on top of MS-DOS (including various versions of which), that both components would be improved by developing them together. The original Windows 95's version of MS-DOS ("7.0") added support for logical block addressing and long file names in FAT. The second one in 95B ("MS-DOS 7.1") added support for FAT32. The Windows Me version ("MS-DOS 8.0")... well ok I don't really know of any practical changes aside from no longer parsing config.sys/autoexec.bat. Still there were obvious compatibility and practical advantages to developing them in tandem. Massive improvements in the file system were feasible in the era that 2GB and larger disks started appearing on the market, simplified boot process as it was assumed that Windows would always be expected, some data structures could be rearranged or axed in order to allow Windows itself to manage resources.

fredoralive 5y ago
There is also an elephant in the room with all these questions about the messy interactions between Windows 9x and DOS - Windows NT. By 1995 Microsoft’s long view of the future of the PC OS did not involve DOS. Even before NT we had OS/2 as well. If Microsoft had been “nicer” they could have made it easier for DR to use their DOS to load a GUI that mostly acted as its own OS and bypassed DOS once loaded, but what happens once they get to XP? (Of course DR / Novell kinda knew this hence stuff like Star Trek, but whatever DR’s vision of the future was never came).
laumars 5y ago
It’s not as clear cut as that. There was a non-Microsoft DOS (might have been Dr DOS but I can’t recall specifically) that would boot Windows 95. Then Microsoft released an update that caused Windows 95 to fail with an vague error message intending to deceive users into thinking there was a technical limitation in other DOSs that prevented Windows from booting. Yet it was later proved that limitation didn’t exist and all Windows was doing was checking if it was MS-DOS, and if not returning an error. If I recall correctly this case even went to court.

alerighi 5y ago

I don't get why you would really want to run Windows 9x with another DOS. It was only used as a bootloader, when Windows started of course the Windows kernel would get full control of the system, leaving MS-DOS only resident for compatibility with legacy software, and nothing mode. What difference could it make to run a better version of DOS on Windows 9x machines?

jchw 5y ago
Windows 9x actually does use MS-DOS for more than just a bootloader. The post describes it in better detail than I actually understand, but they do also briefly list the advantages in the second line of the post from the link, too: > Yes, it is possible to run Windows 9x ontop of DR-DOS. And yes, it has several advantages over using MS-DOS (f.e. smaller memory footprint and much more advanced relocation methods, not only resulting in more free DOS memory, but also in more free Windows resources; better configurability and therefore higher flexibility, more advanced utilities).
- zinekeller 5y ago
  While the merits of combining DOS and Windows is economically debatable, the memory layout of 95 is really well-thought out and DR really didn't realise that certain programs would just "slide" out of their allocated memory range even theoretically no programs should do that (there is already a warning in beta versions that has tighter memory layouts, and DR conveniently forgot how changing the DPMI implementation, even though it should just work, actually isn't). Microsoft is simply trying to minimise problematic applications at the expense of memory consumption.

cratermoon 5y ago

Ah, the memories. Back in the days when Microsoft could be openly and blatantly anti-competitive and nobody really cared because it was just perceived as a nerd-fight outside of tech circles. It was just a coincidence that MS decided to make some changes to Win95 that made it depend on things in MS-DOS that DR-DOS didn't have, but then when DR-DOS caught up, they still had Win9x complain about "incompatible" DOS. But somehow MS managed to maintain backwards compatibility with SimCity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281932 https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii-chicken-and-egg-problems/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...