Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

WinXP and DJGPP....

12 views
Skip to first unread message

diritol

unread,
Feb 1, 2002, 1:57:55 PM2/1/02
to
Well, I'm going to finally move away from my Win95, Pentium
233 Mhz Computer. I'm getting a WinXP-based system. I've
read a lot of different things that say that DJGPP-compiled
programs won't run on computers that run Windows XP. Why
is this? Is there any way to run them without having to
install another OS? An emulator or something? I've even read
that DOOM runs very poorly.

What about DJGPP development on WinXP? Is there a chance that
a new DJGPP version (that supports WinXP) will be released?
If not, does this mean that DJGPP will be useless in a
few years?

*I apologize if my questions seem stupid. I'm not too
knowledgable about these things.*

Thanks,
diritolx...

Charles Sandmann

unread,
Feb 1, 2002, 3:19:18 PM2/1/02
to
> I'm getting a WinXP-based system. I've
> read a lot of different things that say that DJGPP-compiled
> programs won't run on computers that run Windows XP.

This isn't true. Many run fine; others can have problems ranging
from minor to severe. All of the major problems are fixable.

> Why is this? Is there any way to run them without having to
> install another OS? An emulator or something? I've even read
> that DOOM runs very poorly.

Windows XP is based on the Windows 2000 kernel (which is based on
the Windows NT kernel). There are a number of bugs in the long
file name API support; there are also bugs in the NTVDM when
nesting programs. These have been worked around in the V2.03
refresh. See http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/win2k/main_203.htm
for more information. There are links on this page which describe
the problems in detail and even how to make old images work in
some cases.

> What about DJGPP development on WinXP?

DJGPP development on WinXP is not quite as well supported as under
Win 9X. For example: profiling, signals, hardware interrupts,
low level graphics sometimes don't behave correctly on WinNT based
kernels. But when you make a mistake, the odds of crashing WinXP
are much lower than crashing Win9x - so overall I prefer the newer
environment.

> Is there a chance that
> a new DJGPP version (that supports WinXP) will be released?

The v2.03 refresh is on Simtel and clio. All of binaries have not
been rebuilt yet with the new libraries (and we will probably refresh
the refresh to support GCC 3.1 builds - which is why it hasn't been
"announced").

> If not, does this mean that DJGPP will be useless in a few years?

One of the reasons I returned to DJGPP development was to make sure that
Windows 2000 and Windows XP would be good environments for DJGPP
images. I feel we have solved the major issues (in just a few months
time) - reported them to Microsoft for fixes in future releases, and
proven anything left to fix is managable.

What we need now is more people to use Windows 2000 and XP as DJGPP
environments to make them even better supported. Go for it!

Rob McCrea

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 3:26:20 AM2/16/02
to
sorry this ended up long.

XP sucks, imho. I gave it a serious try for about 1 month. 3 games -- 1 dos
and 2 win9x -- wouldn't run properly on it (all close, but no cigar).
That's 100% of the commercial games I tried -- and it's a bitch to
thoroughly search for and try out potential fixes. .Since I only have 35
gigs of disks space, I decided I couldn't waste half a gig on XP anymore.
(And just because I'm here, I'll give you my initally evaultion of XP:
Good: on the fly user switching Bad: That worthless for power users; I
don't have enough "power" for myself let alone another instance. Good: was
very stable for me (in other words, apps crashed, not windows). Bad:
Couldn't find anyone that knew how to set an app's priority BEFORE
launching, for realtime games to run at high level which was needed (err, I
guess I could have tried lowering most other services in my attempt to get
programs to run as fast on XP). Suprising: I have some funky hardware, and
had zero compability problems contrary to popular rumor. Bad: DOS is (once
more) all but dead. Complaint: they advertise that "compatibility mode",
and my pre-XP programs seemed to run worse under compatibilty mode.
Complaint: Some pertty nifty extra feautres, but there's absolutely many
could not be released for win9x. Complaint: MS actively reports they
designed XP to startup in less than 30 seconds -- the day of my installs, it
took nearly 2 minutes (and got worse as I added programs, of course). This
Win98 usually shuts down in less than 2 seconds. XP took a long time to
shut down.

I'd professionally recommend that as a home user with DOS interest, you
should put win98 on your new computer. You (and me, and everyone?) may
think "well, this OS I'm using is 5 years old -- I have to catch up to the
times eventually". All indications are that the times are going away from
Microsoft (operating systems).

(Aw, shit, I started rambling again). My prediction is for the next couple
years more users will experiment with Linux which has certaily come along
way, but is still far from the average user. Indeed, a call has been put
out for the general public to stop Microsofts ever-increasing control of the
PC. This past year, real Unix hardware prices have dropped and are now
competive with PC hardware. Strikes me as funny how it starts on unix, goes
to PCs, and may end up at the PC version of unix. So I doubt that Linux
will be it (but I've got no problem with it's success). It's ironic how as
a whole, the public decides what OS will be king, yet the power to effect a
change lies with the developers -- I feel that the best thing that could
happen right now is that new applications would stop being made for XP.
Make then for linux, unix, macs, dos, win9x and anything else.

I do my best to sell computers for a living, and I seek to humilate
competetors that sell computers with XP on it, by default. (You're smart to
give the customer what he wants, buy you're morally obligated to inform them
of a better deal -- win9x is still supported by many developers and many
bugs have been fixed -- more importantly 100% of your programs that work on
win98 now will work on win98 in the future). Before you get XP let me run
this but you -- "windows95 started making dos obsolete. winxp started
making win95 obsolete. so how well would you expect dos to run under xp?
And windows2003 will certainly be worse."

This just occured to me: I had problems with XP. But I hadn't made up my
mind about it yet, because I felt I should give them change to fix it.
("Give it a year, and try it again".) However I just realized by the time
it works well for me, a new version of windows would be released, and I'd be
in the same boat again. So I suppose my preliminary instinct is also my
finally conclusion. "XP sucks". (and to reiterate -- I'm speaking for the
home user.)

Sorry about that, I guess I'm bored. Back to your concern.

Remember, a few DJGPP compiled programs wouldn't run through Windows9x
either. I also had a few of my own programs that would run on 9x and
suprisingly 2k, but not ME (because of direct video writes or something).

No, they'll will never port the DOS port of GPP to WinXP. I'd imagine the
Win32 ports of GPP are working better on XP than DJ, but I have no
experience there.

You mention emulators. Some are nice, I do so enjoy MAME so I can play
arcade games on my home computer. I also like my Co-Co emulator because I
no longer have a tandy monitor to use with that old computer in my basement.
My business partner is pretty keen his "Playstation" computer. But that's
what emulators are for: emulating different *hardware* on your machine.
There's little real need to emulate *software* (like DOS or Windows) when
you can install that software on your computer. That does get into
multi-booting which is another essay. First paragraph is "Dual-Booting for
PC's". Next 10 pages are "3 or more OS's."

I'd be happy to run over this subject with you as much as you want. I'd
like to ask you these questions:
***What's wrong with your system now? (If it's just slow, that's no reason
to put XP on your new computer. If you have some operating problems,
perhaps Win98SE will fix them.) Essentially, "if it's not broken, don't fix
it". (specifically referring to the OS).
***Take inventory of all your software packages... CD's, floppy's,
download's, etc. How many say "Windows XP: on them? That answer is exactly
how many you can be confident will run properly on XP. How much did all of
that cost? Can you affort to throw away 50% of that money (and time and
detication -- and memories)?
***Are you a developer or a user? Do you want to run DJGPP programs or make
them?

Good luck to you, I hope you get Win98SE until a better & popular OS comes
along. More importantly, I hope I helped instead of wasting your time.

Rob


"diritol" <diri...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3C5AE532...@qwest.net...

Andrew Cottrell

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 6:58:35 PM2/16/02
to
>sorry this ended up long.
>
>XP sucks, imho. I gave it a serious try for about 1 month. 3 games -- 1 dos

Gave up with the crap after the first sentence.

>> Well, I'm going to finally move away from my Win95, Pentium
>> 233 Mhz Computer. I'm getting a WinXP-based system. I've
>> read a lot of different things that say that DJGPP-compiled
>> programs won't run on computers that run Windows XP. Why
>> is this? Is there any way to run them without having to
>> install another OS? An emulator or something? I've even read
>> that DOOM runs very poorly.
>>
>> What about DJGPP development on WinXP? Is there a chance that
>> a new DJGPP version (that supports WinXP) will be released?
>> If not, does this mean that DJGPP will be useless in a
>> few years?
>>
>> *I apologize if my questions seem stupid. I'm not too
>> knowledgable about these things.*

diritolx...

I didn't see the original post and the questions are sensible as DJGPP
has only officially supported WIn 2K and XP for a few months now.
There has been allot of work done with regards to getting DJGPP
working under Win 2K and XP. The problems have been due to bugs in
MS's DOS API functions which have meant that the DJGPP developers have
had to put in work arrounds for these bugs. I have not answered each
of the questions, but his should provide answers for you, except doom
which I haven't played in so loooong.

I have been using DJGPP on Win 2K and XP for over 6 months now (please
note that this is because I was helping out building/finding/fixing
the bugs). The latest DJGPP available from Simtel and mirrors from
this year will work under Win 2K. If you want to get info on what was
done and where the latest version is up to with regards to Win 2K and
XP then start at the following URL:
http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/win2k/main.htm

Please read the info and links carefully and if you want to learn then
go for it.

For the list of outstanding issues follow the issues link.

Andrew


Thomas Mueller

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 5:50:09 AM2/17/02
to
from "Rob McCrea" <mcc...@nospam.com>:

(snip)

Actually, Win98 SE is still shy of three years old. I downloaded DR-DOS 7.03
in late 1999, think you can still download this from http://www.drdos.org/ or
http://www.drdos.net/

How much RAM do you have? From what I read, WinXP really needs 256 MB to
perform at reasonable speed, and you need much more than 1/2 GB disk space (for
XP itself) for a proper install.

There is FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org), though I don't really know if it's
up to strength.

Either of these DOSes, and likely others too, can be run in Linux with dosemu
from what I read, and DJGPP and DJGPP-compiled programs run there too, though I
have so far never set up Linux dosemu.

I don't like what little I've seen close up of MS-Windows, even 98, find the
command prompt more user-friendly than the Windows GUI. I had OS/2 prior to the
hard drive crash last April 6, where it was easy to get to full-screen or
windowed OS/2 or DOS command prompts, which I used, though I also used the GUI.
I think OS/2 Warp might have had the best DOS emulator, though I can't recall
running DJGPP there.

I get the feeling that MS-Windows and its applications pull the wool over the
user's eyes. I'd rather see what is really happening. DOS is losing ground
with newer computer hardware and Internet protocols. I see more future in
GNU/Linux or possibly other Unix-like OS.

Charles Sandmann

unread,
Feb 18, 2002, 12:21:03 AM2/18/02
to
> XP sucks, imho. I gave it a serious try for about 1 month. 3 games -- 1 dos
> and 2 win9x -- wouldn't run properly on it (all close, but no cigar).

If your primary concern for an operating system is based on if it runs
old games - XP probably isn't for you. If you are tired of the reboot of
the hour - and want to be able to run for weeks or months on end without
rebooting or losing data, XP runs circles around any Win 9x based kernel.

(much ranting snipped ...)

> No, they'll will never port the DOS port of GPP to WinXP. I'd imagine the
> Win32 ports of GPP are working better on XP than DJ, but I have no
> experience there.

There are several working versions of the GCC compiler collection and many of
the support tools on Simtel, and they have been there for over a month when
you wrote this message. (There was a reply in the thread 2 weeks before
which pointed that out). Please try to check facts first.

Eli Zaretskii

unread,
Feb 18, 2002, 2:24:24 AM2/18/02
to Charles Sandmann, dj...@delorie.com

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> If you are tired of the reboot of
> the hour - and want to be able to run for weeks or months on end without
> rebooting or losing data, XP runs circles around any Win 9x based kernel.

If we are starting a stability contest, then here's another data point:
my Windows 98SE system reports an uptime of 41:21:05:49 (yes, that's
almost 42 days). The previous record was 3 months of uptime, before a
power outage interfered. Power outages are by far the only reason this
system ever goes down.

My other Windows 98 system is tirtured by my kids with all kinds of buggy
games, but it still stays up for many days on end, and is stable enough
for me to use it to read email and news groups.

Evidently, Windows 9X's fragility is greatly exaggerated. It does take a
bit of setup and vigilance, but so does any other OS out there.

It goes without saying that a descendant of the NT family is more stable
than the 9X family. They don't need to maintain compatibility to DOS
and to 16-bit Windows of the 3.X vintage, so they have less problems.
But beyond this simple technical fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns
out that the MS hype about XP stability is largely a marketing gimmick.
In particular, I have no doubt that in a year or so, we will be told by
MS that XP is crap while the next OS, whatever its name will be, is
superb as far as stability goes...

Thomas Mueller

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 6:56:40 AM2/19/02
to
from Eli Zaretskii <el...@is.elta.co.il>:

> If we are starting a stability contest, then here's another data point:
> my Windows 98SE system reports an uptime of 41:21:05:49 (yes, that's
> almost 42 days). The previous record was 3 months of uptime, before a
> power outage interfered. Power outages are by far the only reason this
> system ever goes down.

> My other Windows 98 system is tirtured by my kids with all kinds of buggy
> games, but it still stays up for many days on end, and is stable enough
> for me to use it to read email and news groups.

> Evidently, Windows 9X's fragility is greatly exaggerated. It does take a
> bit of setup and vigilance, but so does any other OS out there.

> It goes without saying that a descendant of the NT family is more stable
> than the 9X family. They don't need to maintain compatibility to DOS
> and to 16-bit Windows of the 3.X vintage, so they have less problems.
> But beyond this simple technical fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns
> out that the MS hype about XP stability is largely a marketing gimmick.
> In particular, I have no doubt that in a year or so, we will be told by
> MS that XP is crap while the next OS, whatever its name will be, is
> superb as far as stability goes...

You need a UPS so your system would keep running through split-second and other
brief power outages. Power outage at the wrong time can mess up file systems.

Some Linux and BSD users have boasted uptimes on the order of a year.

I guess you are more knowledgeable and more careful regarding email and
newsgroup viruses than the average Windows user. Some Windows users don't even
know the difference between an internal modem and an external modem, this is no
joke.

I've had uptimes exceeding two weeks with DR-DOS 7.03, don't think I ever
approached that with MS-DOS 4.01, 5 or 6.22.

Eli Zaretskii

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 8:14:01 AM2/19/02
to Thomas Mueller, dj...@delorie.com
> From: "Thomas Mueller" <tmue...@bluegrass.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: 19 Feb 2002 11:56:40 GMT

>
> You need a UPS so your system would keep running through split-second and other
> brief power outages.

Yes, but I cannot have a UPS everywhere. Besides, some of the power
outages down here last for too long for the UPS to be a solution.

> Some Linux and BSD users have boasted uptimes on the order of a year.

A machine that can stay up for 3 months can do that for a year as
well.

> I guess you are more knowledgeable and more careful regarding email and
> newsgroup viruses than the average Windows user.

I use Emacs to read my mail, so what is done with attachments is
under my full control. There are some types of virus out there whome
I got to recognize by their MIME headers ;-)

Charles Sandmann

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 11:35:30 AM2/19/02
to
> > If we are starting a stability contest, then here's another data point:
> > my Windows 98SE system reports an uptime of 41:21:05:49 (yes, that's

Must control reply on off topic thread ... arggg ... too late ...

> Some Linux and BSD users have boasted uptimes on the order of a year.

Documented - a VAX/VMS system stayed up for 14 YEARS without reboot.
Call me when you go over 10 years.

For real uptime you need both hardware and software which is stable and
stays backward compatible. I personally have had VMS systems up for 3
years without reboot. My IBM/AIX RS6000 system has been up at times for
about 2 years between reboots (which were always hardware failures in
the non-IBM disk enclosure). I've had Windows NT systems up over 1 year.
Only about 200 days for Win2K since it's so new and there are
always service packs/security patches. And yes, I can keep my Win9x
system alive for more than a month if I avoid doing the things which
I know will crash it...

So now you know how my expectations are set - if it ever crashes -
even due to a hardware failure - I'm disappointed.

DJ Delorie

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 12:27:46 PM2/19/02
to dj...@delorie.com

> Must control reply on off topic thread ... arggg ... too late ...

:-)

> > Some Linux and BSD users have boasted uptimes on the order of a year.
>
> Documented - a VAX/VMS system stayed up for 14 YEARS without reboot.
> Call me when you go over 10 years.

To bring it back on topic, delorie.com, the DJGPP home server we all
know and love, has been up 293 days. I've even updated the operating
system a couple of times during that time, without rebooting. It has
a SmartUPS 1000 which can keep it running for about an hour during
power failures, and I have a gas generator for longer blackouts. It
serves on the order of a gig or two of data (web+mail+etc) every day.
Last summer I borrowed the monitor to get a new machine running, and
the monitor is still sitting in my office.

My DJGPP development machine has been up 93 days. IIRC I had to
install a custom kernel. My work machine has been up 52 days.

Heck, even my laptop has been up for 161 days.

CBFalconer

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 1:53:55 PM2/19/02
to
Charles Sandmann wrote:
>
> > > If we are starting a stability contest, then here's another data point:
> > > my Windows 98SE system reports an uptime of 41:21:05:49 (yes, that's
>
> Must control reply on off topic thread ... arggg ... too late ...
>
> > Some Linux and BSD users have boasted uptimes on the order of a year.
>
> Documented - a VAX/VMS system stayed up for 14 YEARS without reboot.
> Call me when you go over 10 years.

I had an 8080 based system running a mixture of Pascal and
assembly code that ran for about 3 years. It was brought down by
a power failure. Rebooting (which was made automatic on power on,
but not extensively tested) brought it to life again. Maybe
running yet for all I know. I haven't seen it for 15 years. If
you were ever in Yale-New Haven Hospital your test data probably
passed through it, guarded by CRC packet check-sums and full
range-checking.

--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@XXXXworldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
(Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified)
mailto:u...@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)


Dr. András Sólyom

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 5:16:46 AM2/20/02
to dj...@delorie.com
Charles Sandmann wrote:

>If your primary concern for an operating system is based on if it runs
>old games - XP probably isn't for you. If you are tired of the reboot of
>the hour - and want to be able to run for weeks or months on end without
>rebooting or losing data, XP runs circles around any Win 9x based kernel.
>

This is off-topic, but I cannot keep myself from mentioning that on my 3
different machines (Pentium II. 350, Celeron 500, Athlon 1330) XP
crashes regulary with a (graphical) BSD (which according to Microsoft
does not exist any more...). Mostly during startup in various system
drivers, all of which is provided by Microsoft,, but I can crash the OS
sometimes with starting winamp, or debugging in Delphi 3. I had fewer
problems with 98.

Andras

Thomas Mueller

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 5:49:24 AM2/22/02
to
From Eli Zaretskii:

>Yes, but I cannot have a UPS everywhere. Besides, some of the power
>outages down here last for too long for the UPS to be a solution.

You can still shut down gracefully and prevent damage to the file system. But
a UPS can't keep a system going under all possible scenarios.

>A machine that can stay up for 3 months can do that for a year as
>well.

Maybe, sometimes, if your luck holds out. I don't think I ever made 3 months
steady ontime with OS/2. GCC port to OS/2 is EMX, so an OS/2 user might be
more motivated to run EMX than DJGPP.

>I use Emacs to read my mail, so what is done with attachments is
>under my full control. There are some types of virus out there whome
>I got to recognize by their MIME headers ;-)

I too sometimes recognize the virus, and even if I don't recognize the virus's
identity, I recognize it as looking suspicious. Emacs, or elvis too, offers
much better control than you get with the typical MS-Windows mail and news
clients.

0 new messages