djgpp compiler and tools, execution of apps on 64-bit windows
Jim Michaels
compiled with DJGPP in a CMD.exe shell?
can you execute the DJGPP toolset in a CMD.exe shell?
what about 32-bit windows 7?
has anybody tried?
64-bit windows 7 does not come with command.com, neither
(historically) has any 64-bit windows version.
I was going to utilize this information to base my purchase decision
on a new computer.
should I just stay with venerable old XP 32-bit?
Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 18:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
> Bytes: 1579
>
> on, say, 64-bit windows 7, can you execute 32-bit CWSDPMI DOS apps
> compiled with DJGPP in a CMD.exe shell?
> can you execute the DJGPP toolset in a CMD.exe shell?
>
>
> what about 32-bit windows 7?
I don't know the answers regarding 64-bit Windows, but note that all
versions of Windows since Vista have severe limitations on the amount
of DPMI memory they will give DJGPP programs.
> should I just stay with venerable old XP 32-bit?
If you can, yes.
Charles Sandmann
news:d9cc89d0-2aba-440e...@p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> on, say, 64-bit windows 7, can you execute 32-bit CWSDPMI DOS apps
> compiled with DJGPP in a CMD.exe shell?
> can you execute the DJGPP toolset in a CMD.exe shell?
No to both. DJGPP images appear as DOS 16-bit images to
Windows (the stub is 16-bit DOS). 16-bit programs cannot
run under a 64-bit mode unless they are done in emulation.
Emulation products will run DJGPP images, but more
slowly.
> what about 32-bit windows 7?
Should be fine, but 32-bit Win7 is also hard to find.
> I was going to utilize this information to base my purchase decision
> on a new computer.
If the computer has 3GB of memory or less, the 32-bit version
makes more sense for lots of reasons. If the computer has more
than 3GB of memory, you will probably only get to use 3GB
or maybe 3.5GB of it under 32-bit Windows. There are tools
that allow you to use the unused memory for other things like
a RAM disk.
> should I just stay with venerable old XP 32-bit?
It is more compatible with DJGPP images and lots of
software out there, but is hard to find. Microcenter
currently has a reasonable new dual core XP-Pro Dell
system for $399 if you want to stick with previous
generation software. It comes with upgrade rights to
Win 7 Pro if you decide to upgrade.
Jim Michaels
> "Jim Michaels" <jmich...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
actually I was looking at a high end 4 or 6-core box since it was 2004
since I bought a computer (6 years). I was thinking of an intel
processor. i7 980x w 9GB RAM or yorktown HP w 8GB RAM and then
installing XP SP3 Retail or, if windows 7 retail would work, windows 7
retail.
but then I have a drivers problem if I retro xp - drivers may not be
available for xp on the hp web site!
http://www.forumcraze.com/forums/applications/34440-microsoft-windows-7-ultimate-7600-16385-rtm-x86-retail-32bit-final.html
what about the retail version of windows 7? it always treats intel
procs as 32-bit doesn't it? or does it?
I guess from this picture (correct me if I am wrong) the retail
version treats all intel procs like 32-bit procs.
can I set up an emulation product like freedos which has drive/
partition access to the rest of the system if I make another FAT32
filesystem? Freedos uses a variation of FAT32.
Jim Michaels
>
> what about the retail version of windows 7? it always treats intel
> procs as 32-bit doesn't it? or does it?
> I guess from this picture (correct me if I am wrong) the retail
> version treats all intel procs like 32-bit procs.
>
> can I set up an emulation product like freedos which has drive/
> partition access to the rest of the system if I make another FAT32
> filesystem? Freedos uses a variation of FAT32.
I may do a custom computer with windows 7 32-bit. computer stores can
custom build me a computer with windows 7 32-bit and 32-bit has
command.com.
Jim Michaels
I did more research I and I heard some rumblings about windows 7's
"Windows XP Mode".
it turns out it's a Windows Virtual PC that emulates XP yet provides
access to your devices. I don't know what kind of filesystem access
it provides.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/support/faq.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/
and, it's 32-bit always. so I think i'm covered if I get a 64-bit 7
box.
the only issues left are the filesystem virtual store. if anything
ever touches c:\program files\ and it doesn't have a manifest, or
something is trying to write data there, the app gets shuffled off to
the virtual store area. this has been happening since vista.
Rugxulo
On May 11, 8:10 pm, Jim Michaels <jmich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> on, say, 64-bit windows 7, can you execute 32-bit CWSDPMI DOS apps
> compiled with DJGPP in a CMD.exe shell?
Not natively, no.
(the following is a summary of responses to various posts in this
thread)
> all versions of Windows since Vista have severe limitations on
> the amount of DPMI memory they will give DJGPP programs
DPMI limit still exists by default, but you can set the registry to
fix that since Vista SP1 on up. However, there are still some fairly
minor (?) bugs in NTVDM.
>> should I just stay with venerable old XP 32-bit?
> If you can, yes.
They are trying to phase out XP (only SP3 is supported now), and they
will actively dump 2K later this summer. If it serves your needs, by
all means use it, but as mentioned, you will have to struggle with
drivers. (However, some stuff does work better in XP.)
> Emulation products will run DJGPP images, but more slowly.
DOSBox 0.74 was just released. No, I don't think it's much faster, but
I'm not going to try compiling via DJGPP under it (again ... truly
horrible idea, sheesh). If it's not compiler related, you may
appreciate the gfx and sound emulation that DOSBox provides.
Otherwise, it's not ideal, esp. SFN only. You may also find some rare
bugs due to the "games only" policy, but hey, besides all that, it
rocks!
For compiling, I'd suggest either a native FreeDOS partition, DOSEMU
under Linux, or running under 32-bit NTVDM. You could also try
VirtualBox, which is fast, but it lacks some 16-bit and DOS support,
so it's not as robust as their support for other OSes.
> actually I was looking at a high end 4 or 6-core box since it was
> 2004 since I bought a computer (6 years). I was thinking of an
> intel processor. i7 980x w 9GB RAM or yorktown HP w 8GB RAM and
> then installing XP SP3 Retail or, if windows 7 retail would work,
> windows 7 retail.
Big time overkill unless you really really want to use all that RAM
(several high-RAM VMs, perhaps?). Most software still isn't multicore
aware, so that won't show much improvement (4 core vs 2 core). Doesn't
mean you should slum it, just saying, it might not be 10x faster like
you think!
> can I set up an emulation product like freedos which has drive/
> partition access to the rest of the system if I make another FAT32
> filesystem?
FreeDOS does support FAT32 natively, yes, if you're willing to dual
boot. However, Vista on up do not allow booting from FAT32, so you
have to use NTFS, which usually hogs the drive. (But it can still read
FAT32 fine.) Luckily, Vista on up can resize the NTFS for you.
However, you'll need to use something like EasyBCD to change the
bootup selection.
The problem is that most computers seem to have various omissions
regarding DOS, e.g. buggy BIOS extensions (F1 ... crash!) or annoying
power issues (e.g. fan runs full speed, loud, while XP or Linux
somehow know how to shut it up, not sure if FDAPM would help or not).
The most transparent way to access host files under emulation is
DOSEMU or DOSBox. VirtualBox can work too, allegedly, but you have to
use the weird MS NET share gobbledegook, which is all Greek to me.
> I did more research I and I heard some rumblings about windows 7's
> "Windows XP Mode". it turns out it's a Windows Virtual PC that
> emulates XP yet provides access to your devices.
Note that this is only "allowed" on business editions, not home
editions, so it's not really meant for home users (which I assume you
are). BTW, it also doubles your base HD and RAM requirements. Latest
news on that is that it no longer needs VT-X, which is good.
RayeR
RayeR
Windows 2003 server. See here for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension. There's a
limitation that every app can see only 32bit space but multiple apps
gets it's own so together they can use more than 4GB.
64bit win doesn't have any native support for 16bit apps, there's just
buil-in virtual PC emulator. Also you can have dual boot with Win7-64
and FreeDOS/Win9X/WinXP.
Rugxulo
Apparently, Windows 2003 is the successor to 2000, and 2008 further
still. Hence, it should be no huge surprise that they are dropping
support for 2000 and 2003. There will be no further service packs for
2003 beyond SP2 (and it supposedly still has the DPMI limit bug which
can't be fixed via registry, sadly enough).
I think Geoff Chappell proved that Windows does support PAE, even in
home versions (for NX protection ?), but even if it wasn't licensed
where it's disabled for home users, you still need special drivers for
it. Apparently MS thinks PAE is inferior to 64-bit, so they aren't
fully supporting that.
It seems MS is pushing heavily towards 64-bit as their future (which
also needs separate drivers). According to Wikipedia's 2008 article:
"Microsoft has announced that Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit
Windows *server* operating system." If that tells you anything.
RayeR
than 64bit with emulation. But I don't have personal experiences with
running such systems, I still have only 2GB RAM finding it enough for
my work...
Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 07:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Bytes: 2865
>
> Apparently, Windows 2003 is the successor to 2000, and 2008 further
> still.
No. Windows 2003 is the server version of XP, and Windows 2008 is the
server version of Vista.
Robert Riebisch
>> Apparently, Windows 2003 is the successor to 2000, and 2008 further
>> still.
>
> No. Windows 2003 is the server version of XP, and Windows 2008 is the
> server version of Vista.
For completeness: Windows 2008 R2 is the server version of Windows 7.
--
Robert Riebisch
Bitte NUR in der Newsgroup antworten!
Please reply to the Newsgroup ONLY!