Directx 3 "upsets" existing DOS mode games
Jim De Vico
Greg Keogh wrote:
>
> Hello from Melbourne Australia,
>
> It seems that installing Microsoft Directx 3 drivers on Windows 95 "upsets"
> how existing games will play in DOS mode. Helpful comments upon this
> technical mystery are most welcome. Details follow:
>
> We've previously had no problems at all running many popular games such as
> Wing Commander and Silent Hunter under Win95. These games would simply go
> into a DOS full-screen window and run perfectly.
>
> A few days ago we installed the flight-sim game 'USNF 97', during the
> installation it detected that the Microsoft Directx 3 drivers were not
> installed and asked us to confirm their installation, which we did. The
> installation ran smoothly, and the 'USNF 97' game then ran beautifully.
>
> Later we discovered that running the previously installed and working games
> caused Win95 to issue the prompt:
>
> Program Requires MS-DOS Mode
>
> We are then prompted to restarted the PC in DOS mode. After much
> experimentation we found that existing games would only run in MS-DOS mode
> with a new DOS configuration that manually loads all the CD-ROM and mouse
> drivers. The games will run, but it's very tedious to set-up this
> configuration for all of the existing games and restart the PC each time we
> want to play a game.
>
> We are absolutely certain that the change was caused by installing
> Microsoft Directx 3 drivers. How has Directx 3 changed the way the
> previously working DOS games run? Help and advice most welcome.
>
> Please cc responses to my personal email address so I get them ASAP.
I've been running Silent Hunter and other DOS games while having DirectX
version 3 (DX3) loaded for a very long time. I've had this installation
on three seperate computers and never this problem. My guess is that
you're MSDOS pif needs to have a little tweaking done to it. I would
recommend setting all memory options to AUTO and check the box on the
ADVANCED page that prevents DOS programs form detecting windows.
I hope that helps.
Jim 'Crazy' De Vico
Warbirds Trainer
-=Black Sheep=- Alpha Wing
Greg Keogh
Hello from Melbourne Australia,
It seems that installing Microsoft Directx 3 drivers on Windows 95 "upsets"
how existing games will play in DOS mode. Helpful comments upon this
technical mystery are most welcome. Details follow:
We've previously had no problems at all running many popular games such as
Wing Commander and Silent Hunter under Win95. These games would simply go
into a DOS full-screen window and run perfectly.
A few days ago we installed the flight-sim game 'USNF 97', during the
installation it detected that the Microsoft Directx 3 drivers were not
installed and asked us to confirm their installation, which we did. The
installation ran smoothly, and the 'USNF 97' game then ran beautifully.
Later we discovered that running the previously installed and working games
caused Win95 to issue the prompt:
Program Requires MS-DOS Mode
We are then prompted to restarted the PC in DOS mode. After much
experimentation we found that existing games would only run in MS-DOS mode
with a new DOS configuration that manually loads all the CD-ROM and mouse
drivers. The games will run, but it's very tedious to set-up this
configuration for all of the existing games and restart the PC each time we
want to play a game.
We are absolutely certain that the change was caused by installing
Microsoft Directx 3 drivers. How has Directx 3 changed the way the
previously working DOS games run? Help and advice most welcome.
Please cc responses to my personal email address so I get them ASAP.
Cheers,
Greg Keogh
-----------------------------------------------------
27 Nancy Street, Cheltenham, Victoria 3192, Australia
Personal: gr...@werple.mira.net.au
Skeptics: con...@skeptics.com.au
URL: http://www.skeptics.com.au - Australian Skeptics
-----------------------------------------------------
Francis Chow
> We are absolutely certain that the change was caused by installing
> Microsoft Directx 3 drivers. How has Directx 3 changed the way the
> previously working DOS games run? Help and advice most welcome.
This scenario seems very odd as DirectX only operates with games written
for it. I've have DirectX 3 installed for some time now, and am capable of
running a few DOS programs with it. I've run Duke3D no problem since then.
My advice would be to check the pif settings for the executable. In the
Advanced settings on the Program options, select "prevent form detecting
Windows" instead of "suggest MS-DOS mode" Otherwise, consider an F4 boot
to MS-DOS mode when playing MS-DOS games. Or try Origin's Win95 update for
the MS-DOS version of WCIV at http://www.ea.com/origin
If that doesn't work, try taking the problem to news:alt.windows95. I
highly recommend it as that is the place many people take their Win95
related problems to for help.
--
Address altered to avoid spam.
Send to fcc...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca for serious matters, please.
It's bad enough 90% of my mail is regarding a money-making scheme, a new
website, or God.
Now my ISP is seriously P.O.'ed and is threatening action unless this
stops.
*******************************************************************
* What Shakespeare really said: "Kill all the Spammers!" *
*******************************************************************
Olin K. McDaniel
On 12 Apr 1997 02:34:48 GMT, "Greg Keogh"
<[REMOVE]gr...@werple.mira.net.au> wrote:
>Hello from Melbourne Australia,
>
>It seems that installing Microsoft Directx 3 drivers on Windows 95 "upsets"
>how existing games will play in DOS mode. Helpful comments upon this
>technical mystery are most welcome. Details follow:
>
>We've previously had no problems at all running many popular games such as
>Wing Commander and Silent Hunter under Win95. These games would simply go
>into a DOS full-screen window and run perfectly.
>
>A few days ago we installed the flight-sim game 'USNF 97', during the
>installation it detected that the Microsoft Directx 3 drivers were not
>installed and asked us to confirm their installation, which we did. The
>installation ran smoothly, and the 'USNF 97' game then ran beautifully.
>
>Later we discovered that running the previously installed and working games
>caused Win95 to issue the prompt:
>
> Program Requires MS-DOS Mode
>
>We are then prompted to restarted the PC in DOS mode. After much
>experimentation we found that existing games would only run in MS-DOS mode
>with a new DOS configuration that manually loads all the CD-ROM and mouse
>drivers. The games will run, but it's very tedious to set-up this
>configuration for all of the existing games and restart the PC each time we
>want to play a game.
>
>We are absolutely certain that the change was caused by installing
>Microsoft Directx 3 drivers. How has Directx 3 changed the way the
>previously working DOS games run? Help and advice most welcome.
>
>Please cc responses to my personal email address so I get them ASAP.
>
>Cheers,
>Greg Keogh
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>27 Nancy Street, Cheltenham, Victoria 3192, Australia
>Personal: gr...@werple.mira.net.au
>Skeptics: con...@skeptics.com.au
>URL: http://www.skeptics.com.au - Australian Skeptics
>-----------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,
Just a quick general response. (I'll send you a detailed e-mail
description of my technique, but will only give a brief idea of it
here.)
I found out shortly after Win 95 came out, it was the most corrupting
thing to my DOS installation, so I reformatted and created two
completely independent and fully isolated operating systems. That way
I can keep all my DOS programs in a pure DOS environment, DOS 6.22,
and any programs that need to run under Win95 are installed and run in
that environment. It works fine for me.
Olin McDaniel
Greg Cisko
Olin K. McDaniel <omcd...@flosc.net> wrote in article
<33524ed...@news.gabn.net>...
> I found out shortly after Win 95 came out, it was the most corrupting
> thing to my DOS installation, so I reformatted and created two
If you install Win95 into C:\Windows where you had an old version
of windows, then yes it does overwrite DOS & Win3.x. Just install
into C:\Win95 instead and you will have OLD-DOS available from
the F8 option on bootup.
> completely independent and fully isolated operating systems. That way
> I can keep all my DOS programs in a pure DOS environment, DOS 6.22,
> and any programs that need to run under Win95 are installed and run in
> that environment. It works fine for me.
The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
though. Rob Kim posted a great idea some time ago. Just make
a Win95 shortcut to COMMAND.COM. Then go to the section
where you specify the individual CONFIG.SYS & AUTOEXEC.BAT
and load your CDrom, mouse and soundcard stuff in those
sections. You can also make a shortcut for each DOS game with
these startup files specified. Each time you run the game the computer
re-boots & runs everything needed for the game. This is the things
that you would normaly put in your DOS config.sys & autoexec.
When you are done you re-boot back to Win95. Simple with
some practice.
As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
is.
--
Header address intentionaly scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
>
>
Olin K. McDaniel
On 14 Apr 1997 20:27:50 GMT, "Greg Cisko"
<gci...@nOsPaMconcentric.net> wrote:
Greg,
You are absolutely correct, I really don't know what all is going on
with Win95 - neither in its native form nor it its so called DOS, but
the full truth is - I don't feel I really want to know!!!!
I've been perfectly comfortable with DOS, having learned it in all its
twists and turns, plus all the add ins that were available over the
past 12 - 15 years. I will continue to run programs that were/or will
be written for DOS under that OS. As I acquire new programs that
demand Win95, I'll accept their requirements for their OS and use
Win95 for them.
To do all the headstands etc. that you and others keep saying is so
simple to do, and relearn another OS is not a viable alternative for
me. It's that simple. I like to use what I feel comfortable with,
and don't intend to knuckle under to a tidal wave of pressure. It
appears there are plenty of others of us, call us stubborn, hard
headed, or even worse - we yield with great resistance. Fighting all
the way. No offense meant, but I don't have to buy a new car every
year nor a new computer every 6 months, nor a new OS when the old one
does all I can possibly want.
Guess the flames begin! <vbg>
Olin
-
Greg Cisko
> You are absolutely correct, I really don't know what all is going on
> with Win95 - neither in its native form nor it its so called DOS, but
> the full truth is - I don't feel I really want to know!!!!
Fair enough.
> I've been perfectly comfortable with DOS, having learned it in all its
> twists and turns, plus all the add ins that were available over the
> past 12 - 15 years. I will continue to run programs that were/or will
> be written for DOS under that OS. As I acquire new programs that
> demand Win95, I'll accept their requirements for their OS and use
> Win95 for them.
The point you (and others) don't seem to want to understand (or are some-
how not capable of understanding) if that everything you learned in DOS 6.x
can be applied in Win95 (DOS 7). Period... Many people do not seem to
understand this. It is quite simple. Win95's MS-DOS mode is the same
(functionally) as DOS 6.x. By using a second OS it is *YOU* who are doing
the
headstands. I am paring down to one OS. Ironic, really :-) As Lloyd Case
mentioned in a recent CGW article, DOS games are amazingly simple to
setup in Win95. And it is true. Who would have ever thought...
> To do all the headstands etc. that you and others keep saying is so
> simple to do, and relearn another OS is not a viable alternative for
> me. It's that simple. I like to use what I feel comfortable with,
> and don't intend to knuckle under to a tidal wave of pressure. It
> appears there are plenty of others of us, call us stubborn, hard
> headed, or even worse - we yield with great resistance. Fighting all
> the way. No offense meant, but I don't have to buy a new car every
> year nor a new computer every 6 months, nor a new OS when the old one
> does all I can possibly want.
>
> Guess the flames begin! <vbg>
Nope, no flames. Just seriously trying to help you (and others)
understand. I normally just pass on these trolls.
pap...@ix.netcom.com
This idea works extremly well.. I used to have a dual boot to old 6.20
when the puter booted up I could press F4 and poof back to dos...but
this set up works better...see the only thing I didnt like about doing
an advanced properties on each game was that it was a pain in the
ass...because you had to do it over and over for each game and so many
ICONS laying around. Also as soon as you finished a game poof back to
DOS...not doing it like Rob Kim suggested...one icon....one multi
config set of config autoexec and when Im finished killing demons I
can go a drive around Monza...I dont get kicked back to WinBlows.
PAPA DOC
>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>though. Rob Kim posted a great idea some time ago. Just make
>a Win95 shortcut to COMMAND.COM. Then go to the section
>where you specify the individual CONFIG.SYS & AUTOEXEC.BAT
>and load your CDrom, mouse and soundcard stuff in those
>sections.
As well Soundblaster has a configuration manager for DOS that will
install the correct lines in what ever config your running in DOS. So
this is a big help and maybe now I wont completly ruin Creative Labs
when I dive bomb them...
I dont like the shortcut method since when your finished you get
kicked back to Win95..but agreed its easy to do....the command.com is
easier.
PAPA DOC
>You can also make a shortcut for each DOS game with
>these startup files specified. Each time you run the game the computer
>re-boots & runs everything needed for the game. This is the things
>that you would normaly put in your DOS config.sys & autoexec.
>When you are done you re-boot back to Win95. Simple with
>some practice.
>
>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>is.
>
Jan Mandler
On 14 Apr 1997 20:27:50 GMT, "Greg Cisko"
<gci...@nOsPaMconcentric.net> wrote:
>
>Olin K. McDaniel <omcd...@flosc.net> wrote in article
><33524ed...@news.gabn.net>...
>
>> I found out shortly after Win 95 came out, it was the most corrupting
>> thing to my DOS installation, so I reformatted and created two
>
>If you install Win95 into C:\Windows where you had an old version
>of windows, then yes it does overwrite DOS & Win3.x. Just install
>into C:\Win95 instead and you will have OLD-DOS available from
>the F8 option on bootup.
>
>> completely independent and fully isolated operating systems. That way
>> I can keep all my DOS programs in a pure DOS environment, DOS 6.22,
>> and any programs that need to run under Win95 are installed and run in
>> that environment. It works fine for me.
>
>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>though. Rob Kim posted a great idea some time ago. Just make
>a Win95 shortcut to COMMAND.COM. Then go to the section
>where you specify the individual CONFIG.SYS & AUTOEXEC.BAT
>and load your CDrom, mouse and soundcard stuff in those
>sections. You can also make a shortcut for each DOS game with
>these startup files specified. Each time you run the game the computer
>re-boots & runs everything needed for the game. This is the things
>that you would normaly put in your DOS config.sys & autoexec.
>When you are done you re-boot back to Win95. Simple with
>some practice.
Hmm, I'm running my system with both DOS 6.22 and Win95 in dual-boot.
With the following lines added to my msdos.sys, I get a menu when
starting Win95 that let's me select which OS to boot:
[Options]
BootMulti=1
BootGUI=1
BootMenu=1
BootMenuDefault=1
BootMenuDelay=60
Network=0
That gives the the same menu as if I pressed F8, I just don't have to
press F8 here in the right second.
To me, this runs perfectly. I wouldn't trade it for anything else.
When booting to DOS, I have another DOS-boot-menu that lets me select
different autoexec.bat's and config.sys's. (with or without EMM386 and
so).
I agree that I could get my DOS games running in Win95 or DOS 7.0 as
well, but why should I care about how to run them in DOS 7 if I can
run the original?
I've found out why I had trouble with that dual boot on the other PC
in our home. It's a different version of Win95 (OEM). My Win95 OEM
here is about a year old and runs fine. The latest one doesn't seem to
like that dual-boot to DOS...
>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
Agreed. No discussion about that.
Jan
Nosferatu
jan.m...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de (Jan Mandler) wrote:
>Hmm, I'm running my system with both DOS 6.22 and Win95 in dual-boot.
>With the following lines added to my msdos.sys, I get a menu when
>starting Win95 that let's me select which OS to boot:
Ok, that's a good way and I used to do it that way too until I came to
realize that dos 6.2 is no better than dos 7.0. Those extra drivers
that Win95 loads in dos7 can be forced to not load by adding this
line;DOS=HIGH,UMB,NOAUTO (thx to JD for that tip). If you want Qbasic
back and other old dos stuff like HELP even, it's all on the Win95
cdrom which you can put back into dos7. Then you create a multi-config
and you will not need to press any function key to get dos, you just
select it from a menu at bootup. Very simple and very functional. Dos
6.2 is just a waste of space as far as I'm concerned. Mind you,
compared to the size of games these days it's no big deal, but why
have two copies of the same thing on your computer?
--
Nos
http://www.concentric.net/~nosfer/index.html
Warning - All spelling mistakes are to be left as is. No modification
is allowed without the express written permission of Nos Enterprises.
All complaints in regards to the subject herein are to be forwarded to
u...@anal.com.
Jan Mandler
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:28:03 GMT, nos...@concentric.net (Nosferatu)
wrote:
>jan.m...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de (Jan Mandler) wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm, I'm running my system with both DOS 6.22 and Win95 in dual-boot.
>>With the following lines added to my msdos.sys, I get a menu when
>>starting Win95 that let's me select which OS to boot:
>
>Ok, that's a good way and I used to do it that way too until I came to
>realize that dos 6.2 is no better than dos 7.0. Those extra drivers
>that Win95 loads in dos7 can be forced to not load by adding this
>line;DOS=HIGH,UMB,NOAUTO (thx to JD for that tip). If you want Qbasic
>back and other old dos stuff like HELP even, it's all on the Win95
>cdrom which you can put back into dos7. Then you create a multi-config
>and you will not need to press any function key to get dos, you just
>select it from a menu at bootup. Very simple and very functional. Dos
>6.2 is just a waste of space as far as I'm concerned. Mind you,
>compared to the size of games these days it's no big deal, but why
>have two copies of the same thing on your computer?
>
>--
>Nos
Hmm, maybe it's just that I don't like to give something up that works
fine and that I've spend so many hours in to configure that config.sys
/ autoexec.bat.
OK, but maybe I do the switch to DOS 7 with the other PC in my home
I'm just doing the install work with.
So how you run that DOS 7? There are so many ways: Shortcuts to "dos
mode", or just click on start/boot to dos mode or whatsoever? I'm
normally quite good at configuring PCs, but I've never touched DOS 7.
So where do you add that multi-config? I know well how to do that in
6.22, is it the same in DOS 7? Do you alter the config.sys or just the
dosstart.bat?
I'd like to get some kind of menu where I can select whether to load
EMM386 or not and all that stuff.
Would be nive if you could explain that what you have on your system
in some detail.
Thanks,
Jan
David Ballard
> >As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
> >who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
> >with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
> >is.
> >
>
> Greg,
>
> You are absolutely correct, I really don't know what all is going on
> with Win95 - neither in its native form nor it its so called DOS, but
> the full truth is - I don't feel I really want to know!!!!
>
> I've been perfectly comfortable with DOS, having learned it in all its
> twists and turns, plus all the add ins that were available over the
> past 12 - 15 years. I will continue to run programs that were/or will
> be written for DOS under that OS. As I acquire new programs that
> demand Win95, I'll accept their requirements for their OS and use
> Win95 for them.
>
> To do all the headstands etc. that you and others keep saying is so
> simple to do, and relearn another OS is not a viable alternative for
> me. It's that simple. I like to use what I feel comfortable with,
> and don't intend to knuckle under to a tidal wave of pressure. It
> appears there are plenty of others of us, call us stubborn, hard
> headed, or even worse - we yield with great resistance. Fighting all
> the way. No offense meant, but I don't have to buy a new car every
> year nor a new computer every 6 months, nor a new OS when the old one
> does all I can possibly want.
>
> Guess the flames begin! <vbg>
>
> Olin
>
> -
REFORMAT AGAIN and just put on windows 95!!!
DirectX3 Rules dos sux!!!! There should only be 95 games!!
Hang on but Dos games run faster...But doesn't direct supposed do make
it faster o well just buy a faster computer!!!yeah right!!
Use OS/2 Warp....No that sux to it all sux!!!!!
--
------Smmeeeeeeggggggg heeeeaaaaaadddddd-------
'It will be happened; it shall be going to be happening; it will be was
an
event that could will have been taken place in the future.' =8-)=
David L Webster
On 14 Apr 1997 20:27:50 GMT, "Greg Cisko"
<gci...@nOsPaMconcentric.net> wrote:
>
>Olin K. McDaniel <omcd...@flosc.net> wrote in article
><33524ed...@news.gabn.net>...
>
>> I found out shortly after Win 95 came out, it was the most corrupting
>> thing to my DOS installation, so I reformatted and created two
>
>If you install Win95 into C:\Windows where you had an old version
>of windows, then yes it does overwrite DOS & Win3.x. Just install
>into C:\Win95 instead and you will have OLD-DOS available from
>the F8 option on bootup.
>
>> completely independent and fully isolated operating systems. That way
>> I can keep all my DOS programs in a pure DOS environment, DOS 6.22,
>> and any programs that need to run under Win95 are installed and run in
>> that environment. It works fine for me.
>
>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
Yep, I've been using Win95 DOS 7 since Beta 2 with no problems on any
DOS programs. Most of the time they run just fine in a DOS session,
I have just a few that need to run in a pure DOS mode.
>though. Rob Kim posted a great idea some time ago. Just make
>a Win95 shortcut to COMMAND.COM. Then go to the section
>where you specify the individual CONFIG.SYS & AUTOEXEC.BAT
>and load your CDrom, mouse and soundcard stuff in those
>sections. You can also make a shortcut for each DOS game with
>these startup files specified. Each time you run the game the computer
>re-boots & runs everything needed for the game. This is the things
>that you would normaly put in your DOS config.sys & autoexec.
>When you are done you re-boot back to Win95. Simple with
>some practice.
>
I actually run Win95/DOS7 just like I used to run WFW311/DOS622,
because they are basically the same. I use the same multi-CONFIG.SYS
and AUTOEXEC.BAT from 6.22. After I make my startup choice (extended,
extended/expanded, bare, Win95) the system boots to the DOS prompt
(except the Win95 choice). When I need to run Win95 I type WIN, just
like the old days. If I have to leave Win95, it takes my back to the
DOS prompt. All those splash screens at the start and exit of Win95
are just curtains so no one can see what is actually running behind
them, DOS !!!! (say it ain't so!!)
>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>is.
That is how it is.
Chris Rogers
>>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>>is.
hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
clues at all either.
$0.02
Chris
Greg Cisko
Chris Rogers <ch...@vci.com.au> wrote in article <oMiczAP...@vci.com.au>...
> >>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
> >>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
> >>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>
> Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
> back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
This is untrue if you have WIN95 installed. You can use Win95's MS-DOS
mode. It is the same (functionaly) as DOS 6.2x. In the case where you have
WIN95 installed DOS 6 is totaly unnesissary. If you think otherwise, you need
more info on Win95 & DOS. Period.
> one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
> also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>
> >>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
> >>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
> >>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
> >>is.
>
> hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
> thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
> But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
> but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
> clues at all either.
If you have Win95 installed, old DOS is not needed. But if you "think"
this is not true, good for you. Of course there is no wat someone can
make you believe this. But that is unimportant :-)
>
> $0.02
>
> Chris
That is my $200 per incident charge :-)
Jan Mandler
On Thu, 8 May 97 09:02:00 +1100, ch...@vci.com.au (Chris Rogers)
wrote:
>>>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>>>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>>>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>
>Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
>back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
>one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
>also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>
>>>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>>>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>>>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>>>is.
>
>hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
>thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
>But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
>but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
>clues at all either.
>
Hmm, when I boot my PC, I can always access DOS 6.22 via the first
boot-menu and then DOS 7 via the second boot menu. I didn't find any
difference in game performance, since I set up my DOS 7 config.sys +
autoexec.bat parts the same way as the DOS 6.22 files.
Anyway, I still use DOS 6.22 instead of DOS 7. Don't know why, but it
feels more aquainted to me:-)
However, I still use the normal Win95. In the other PC in my home,
there is already Win95 B installed, so no chance for DOS 6.22 (because
of the FAT 32). DOS 7 works just fine there.
Jan
---
jan.m...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de
http://stud-www.uni-marburg.de/~Mandler
David L Webster
>>>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>>>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>>>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>
>Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
>back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
>one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
>also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>
>>>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>>>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>>>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>>>is.
>
>hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
>thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
>But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
>but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
>clues at all either.
>
>$0.02
>
>Chris
>
Well, since August of '95 I dumped 'OLD DOS' and have never needed it
for anything since that time, and I still run LOTS of old DOS
programs. Outside of a little bigger 'footprint' in conventional
memory, DOS 7 is just a minor upgrade from DOS 6.22. Granted, there
are old Windows 3.x apps that don't run under Win95, but I have yet to
find a DOS program that doesn't work under DOS 7 when running in
single mode. Some DOS programs, of course, don't like to run in a DOS
session, but that is the same problem that existed under Win3.x.
Right now, I'm doing some contract computer work for the US Postal
Service (and I've found that contrary to popular belief, they are very
nice people). They are in the process of converting from DOS
6.21/Win31 to Win95 throughout the entire country (I'm doing it now at
one of the larger mail facilities with about 400 workstations). Now
the old DOS programs they use work fine, but some older Win31 apps
don't. Since they run Win31 as a network setup, it's run it off a
Novell file server. Now though, they want to have Win95 installed
completely local on every machine (which is creating some IS
management headaches). So now they run Win95/DOS 7 and when they
need old win apps, they run Win 31, BUT they are actually running it
from DOS 7 not 6.21. This is not the standard Win95 dual boot method,
since they don't have Win31 loaded locally and they didn't want to
have to fool around with two versions of DOS. We've found that DOS 7
runs the old DOS apps and Windows 3.1 with no problems at all.
The facts are, Win95 is Windows 4 and DOS 7. If you ever used DOS
6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11, then you basically have used the
beta of Win95, the relationships between Win95/DOS7 are the same as
WFW311/DOS622.
If you get a chance, pick up Andrew Schulmans 'Unathorized Windows
95', it cuts through the hype and shows Win95 for what it is, which is
a Win311/DOS622 upgrade.
Geoffrey Dunn
Chris Rogers (ch...@vci.com.au) wrote:
: >>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
: >>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
: >>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
: >>is.
:
: hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
: thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
story...
About one month ago I installed Win95. I've been putting it off for a long
time for good reasons. However once installed properly I immediatly tested
the games still installed to see how they ran. Movies were a little jerky
but both Mechwarrior II and Warcraft II ran fine. Later I installed a demo
of Earthsiege II to try out. I've been wanting to see this game for a long
time. Included was the Direct X 3 drivers needed and so in they went. ES II
was less than impressive and I soon removed it from my machine, yet direct X
dirvers can not be uninstalled, so they stayed. Now when I try and run
Mechwarrior II in '95 I get horizontal lines of crap in the simulator. An
error that was not there before, Warcraft II plays midi music at about twice
the speed, and all dos programs by default complain when running through '95
and have to be specialy set to stop complaining or reboot to dos. I have
seen it. These changes are real. The question is why and how. And how the
heck can I get rid of the direct X 3 drivers because installing the lastest
version fixes nothing.
--
Geoffrey Dunn gdu...@scu.edu.au
http://spike.scu.edu.au/~gdunn10/
If you take my comments seriously, please
take two aspirins and see me in the morning.
Member of Australians United Against Gherkins.
David L Webster
>
>hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
>thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
>But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
>but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
>clues at all either.
>
>$0.02
>
>Chris
>
Well, continuing in the blunt vein, when I read about people who
think they need to juggle different versions of DOS using bootdisks,
dual boots etc, I wonder why they put themselves through all that
hassle.
When DOS 3.1 came out, I dumped 3.0, same thing for 3.3. When 5.0 was
out, I certainly didn't keep 3.3 boot disks around for anything (note
I didn't mention DOS 4, I did skip that one which was a real stinker).
When 6.0 hit the streets, 5.0 was history. I dumped OLD DOS (6.22)
in August '95 and have only used DOS 7 since then for everything. I
use the same multi config options that I used in 6.22. No boot disks,
no dual booting different versions of DOS. I have yet to find a DOS
program I couldn't get to work. Besides a slightly larger footprint
in conventional memory, it's the same old DOS. And for those few WIN
3.1 apps that won't work under 95? I run WFW3.11 from DOS 7, works
great. No boot disks, no dual DOS, no hassle.
Right now I'm doing contract computer work for a very large company
(one of the largest Novell networks in the world). We are in the
process of converting from DOS 6.2/Win3.1 to Win95. Now they have
lots of custom apps, both DOS and Windows. During testing they found
the DOS apps all work under DOS 7. Now they still have some Win 3.1
apps that don't quite work yet under 95, so until they get upgraded
they still need Win 3.1 for some things. The MIS department decided
on a DOS 7/Windows 4(95)/Win31 configuration. When they need Win3.1
they run it from DOS 7. Their thoughts were the same, why juggle two
versions of DOS? It's just one more thing to deal with, more
troubleshooting questions, two sets of boot disk for the MIS techs to
carry around, etc. They certainly aren't supporting machines using
DOS 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 6.2, 6.21. One DOS is
all you need, and certainly simplifies life, at least for me.
Well, there's my .02.
-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net
Paul Minson
David L Webster wrote:
[snip]
> Well, continuing in the blunt vein, when I read about people who
> think they need to juggle different versions of DOS using bootdisks,
> dual boots etc, I wonder why they put themselves through all that
> hassle.
>
> When DOS 3.1 came out, I dumped 3.0, same thing for 3.3. When 5.0 was
> out, I certainly didn't keep 3.3 boot disks around for anything (note
> I didn't mention DOS 4, I did skip that one which was a real stinker).
> When 6.0 hit the streets, 5.0 was history. I dumped OLD DOS (6.22)
> in August '95 and have only used DOS 7 since then for everything. I
> use the same multi config options that I used in 6.22. No boot disks,
> no dual booting different versions of DOS. I have yet to find a DOS
> program I couldn't get to work. Besides a slightly larger footprint
> in conventional memory, it's the same old DOS. And for those few WIN
> 3.1 apps that won't work under 95? I run WFW3.11 from DOS 7, works
> great. No boot disks, no dual DOS, no hassle.
David, that slightly larger footprint in conventional memory can force
some hardware drivers to load low, because they no longer all fit into
upper memory. That, in turn, reduces the conventional memory available
below the minimum needed for some software. My wife and I have that
problem on both our computers. Short of buying new hardware with
smaller drivers, we cannot use the DOS software in question under
Win95. It was cheaper (and not much more difficult than installing new
hardware) to decipher how Win95 manages its several copies of CONFIG.SYS
and AUTOEXEC.BAT and set up a nice system where I have all needed
configurations of DOS 6.22 and Win95 DOS mode available from just one
lonely icon in Win95. Very little hassle, no mess, no boot disks.
AND NECESSARY.
--Paul
Paul Minson
Greg Cisko wrote:
[snip]
> This is untrue if you have WIN95 installed. You can use Win95's MS-DOS
> mode. It is the same (functionaly) as DOS 6.2x. In the case where you have
> WIN95 installed DOS 6 is totaly unnesissary. If you think otherwise, you need
> more info on Win95 & DOS. Period.
> gci...@concentric.net
Greg, there is an exception to this. On some DOS-based games there are
pretty stringent conventional memory requirements, and the Win95
versions
of the DOS memory-resident code are larger than their DOS 6.22
forerunners. My wife and I both have software where the increase in
size
of the Win95 DOS code forces hardware drivers to load low instead of
into upper memory, reducing conventional memory below the minimum
required by the software. There IS a need for DOS 6.22 under Win95 for
some people. You personally may not need it, but I'm one of two people
and two computers that do, if I want to continue running my software.
Moral of the story: be careful when you make absolute statements.
Absolute statements are rarely correct.
--Paul
Greg Cisko
Chris King <ch...@csking.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <uq9H+EAx...@csking.demon.co.uk>...
> >This is untrue if you have WIN95 installed. You can use Win95's MS-DOS
> >mode. It is the same (functionaly) as DOS 6.2x. In the case where you have
> >WIN95 installed DOS 6 is totaly unnesissary. If you think otherwise, you need
> >more info on Win95 & DOS. Period.
>
> following conditions apply before you can install it:
Sure I have.
> 1. A previous version of DOS MUST BE INSTALLED (along with CD-ROM
> drivers if you have the Upgrade version on CD) and EITHER
> 2a. Have a previous version of Windows installed, OR
> 2b. Have disk 1 of your Windows installation media to hand.
I said if you have win95 installed DOS is unnessessary. I never said anything
about before win95 is installed. Try actually reading the post next time.
> Also, some of us need to maintain a "dual-boot" Windows system, ie keep
> Win 3.1x and Win95 available (not all 16-bit apps work properly under
> Win95) and for that purpose you need to keep an older DOS around for
> compatibility.
Well I guess my problem is that I stupidly upgraded all of my software.
> It might be possible to run Win 3.1 on top DOS 7.0, but I wouldn't like
> to try it. Has anyone managed this sucessfully ?
>
> In any case, DOS 7.0 is not *totally* identical to DOS 6.22 - remember
> that it has additional features like long filename support. At command-
> line level it looks much the same, but there will be additional MS-DOS
> functions under the bonnet, and no doubt *some* programs that use
> unofficial/undocumented function calls will fail.
As far as running DOS games (which is what the thread is about)
Win95's MS-DOS reboot is the same. To try to say otherwise
proves lack of knowledge.
FWIW, I have installed DOS, Win3.1x, Win95, WinNT Workstation
and WinNT Server probably over 300 times now. You have no chance
to win this arguement (Re: DOS games in a Win95 MS-DOS reboot).
So if you want to believe that other stuff that is fine by me. Your
moldy 16bit Win3.11 applications are of course a different matter,
which is unrelated to running MS-DOS games in WIn95.
> As an aside, getting rid of DirectX 3.0 is a real pain, especially if
> you installed over a previous version. Moral of the story: make damn
> sure you've reverted to your normal drivers before installing DX 3.0.
--
Header address intentionaly scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris King
> ch...@csking.demon.co.uk
> http://www.csking.demon.co.uk
>
David L Webster
>David, that slightly larger footprint in conventional memory can force
>some hardware drivers to load low, because they no longer all fit into
>upper memory. That, in turn, reduces the conventional memory available
>below the minimum needed for some software.
Hi Paul,
I think you've got your memory types confused. How does less
_conventional_ memory cause a driver to load low from an _upper_
memory block? The DOS kernel is loading into High Memory, not UMB
space. High Memory is a 64k area right above the 1MB boundary, which
BTW should not be accessible to DOS but because of a bug in the 80286
CPU which has now become a 'feature' (the A20 line) DOS can actually
access it, which is what the DOS=HIGH statement does. It has no
relation or bearing on upper memory, which is between 640K and 1MB.
Conventional memory does not use any upper memory blocks for DOS
unless you load DOS drivers there via emm386. Remember conventional
memory is based on the real mode operation of an Intel CPU, which is
based on the 8088 chip, 640K of base memory and 384K of memory devoted
to hardware. Actually real mode operation can't even access that
memory space, it's mapped in from extended memory by EMM386. If
your drivers are loading low it's because of less UMB space, not less
conventional memory space.
Now the WIN95 versions of smartdrive, mscdex and other utilities that
DO load into UMB are larger than DOS 6.x versions and yes that can
cause other drivers to load low, which in turn causes less
conventional memory because the DOS 7 resident kernel is a little
bigger, so yes I would agree with your original statement, but for a
different reason. But frankly, it has not been that a problem for me.
I load Smartdrive, cdrom, soundblaster, and network card drivers and
still have plenty of memory to run all my old DOS apps (and I got a
lot of em I still rely on).
>problem on both our computers. Short of buying new hardware with
>smaller drivers, we cannot use the DOS software in question under
>Win95. It was cheaper (and not much more difficult than installing new
>hardware) to decipher how Win95 manages its several copies of CONFIG.SYS
>and AUTOEXEC.BAT and set up a nice system where I have all needed
>configurations of DOS 6.22 and Win95 DOS mode available from just one
>lonely icon in Win95. Very little hassle, no mess, no boot disks.
>AND NECESSARY.
See, I don't use several copies of CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, I use
just one set and it is the same ones that I used in DOS 6.22. I
click on one lonely icon (like you do), and I get my old 6.22
multi-config menu, except that it's DOS7. It in are all the options I
need to get as much conventional or expanded/extended memory to run
all the apps that I still have and used to run under 6.22, including
memory monsters like Falcon3. No hassle, no mess, no boot disks.
For me, two DOS's NOT NECESSARY.
Now we're getting WAY off topic, we should expect to get flamed soon.
One life- One DOS, No complications (Sounds like a bumper sticker)
-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net
David L Webster
>Also, some of us need to maintain a "dual-boot" Windows system, ie keep
>Win 3.1x and Win95 available (not all 16-bit apps work properly under
>Win95) and for that purpose you need to keep an older DOS around for
>compatibility.
>
>It might be possible to run Win 3.1 on top DOS 7.0, but I wouldn't like
>to try it. Has anyone managed this sucessfully ?
>
Yes, doing it right now on about 400 workstations, so far with no
problems. Because of support headaches this was decided on instead of
supporting two versions of DOS. We run DOS 7, a network installation
of Win31 and local installs of Win95 on each machine.
>In any case, DOS 7.0 is not *totally* identical to DOS 6.22 - remember
>that it has additional features like long filename support. At command-
>line level it looks much the same, but there will be additional MS-DOS
>functions under the bonnet, and no doubt *some* programs that use
>unofficial/undocumented function calls will fail.
>
That's true, but long file name support is only active when running in
a DOS session. If you boot to single DOS mode, you won't have long
file name support nor will you see them in the directory listing. And
I'm sure there are some DOS programs that will bomb, just like there
were programs that bombed under 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0,
6.2, 6.21, 6.22 and will continue to bomb the further on we go.
>As an aside, getting rid of DirectX 3.0 is a real pain, especially if
>you installed over a previous version. Moral of the story: make damn
>sure you've reverted to your normal drivers before installing DX 3.0.
>
Agreed, DirectX may be good for developers but at the user level it
can be a real headache.
-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net
Chris King
In article <01bc5b44$b1249640$1fb9...@crc3.concentric.net>, Greg Cisko
<gci...@nOsPaMconcentric.net> writes
>> >>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>> >>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>>
>> Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
>> back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
>
>mode. It is the same (functionaly) as DOS 6.2x. In the case where you have
>WIN95 installed DOS 6 is totaly unnesissary. If you think otherwise, you need
>more info on Win95 & DOS. Period.
You've obviously never installed an upgrade copy of Win95 then - the
following conditions apply before you can install it:
1. A previous version of DOS MUST BE INSTALLED (along with CD-ROM
drivers if you have the Upgrade version on CD) and EITHER
2a. Have a previous version of Windows installed, OR
2b. Have disk 1 of your Windows installation media to hand.
Also, some of us need to maintain a "dual-boot" Windows system, ie keep
Win 3.1x and Win95 available (not all 16-bit apps work properly under
Win95) and for that purpose you need to keep an older DOS around for
compatibility.
It might be possible to run Win 3.1 on top DOS 7.0, but I wouldn't like
to try it. Has anyone managed this sucessfully ?
In any case, DOS 7.0 is not *totally* identical to DOS 6.22 - remember
that it has additional features like long filename support. At command-
line level it looks much the same, but there will be additional MS-DOS
functions under the bonnet, and no doubt *some* programs that use
unofficial/undocumented function calls will fail.
As an aside, getting rid of DirectX 3.0 is a real pain, especially if
you installed over a previous version. Moral of the story: make damn
sure you've reverted to your normal drivers before installing DX 3.0.
Chris
Alun Bell
In article <01bc5c9b$166a9020$5fba...@crc3.concentric.net>, Greg Cisko
<gci...@nOsPaMconcentric.net> writes
>
>FWIW, I have installed DOS, Win3.1x, Win95, WinNT Workstation
>and WinNT Server probably over 300 times now. You have no chance
>to win this arguement (Re: DOS games in a Win95 MS-DOS reboot).
>So if you want to believe that other stuff that is fine by me. Your
>moldy 16bit Win3.11 applications are of course a different matter,
>which is unrelated to running MS-DOS games in WIn95.
>
Doesn't make you the ultimate guru... I do installs a dozen times or
more a week, and there's loads of stuff I'm learning all the time after
ten years of doing support. Don't assume you know everything about an OS
just cos you can get it to run.
--
Al
traxx
Um.. bullshit.
Dos7 for one thing isn't really dos. It's win95 in a "dos" mode.
Secondly, dos7 by default uses more base memory. A >Few< games require
approx. 600k base and in win95 it is virtually impossible, especially if
you need mscdex, dblspace , etc installed. It is rare, but there are
some things you simply cannot run without using an older version of dos.
Despite what the wannabe's on the newsgroups and MS's hacks tell you.
The best thing to do is keep a dos62 boot disk configured for maximum
memory around and make sure it has all the drivers etc on it.
> WIN95 installed DOS 6 is totaly unnesissary. If you think otherwise, you need
> more info on Win95 & DOS. Period.
>
> > one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
> > also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
> >
> > >>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
> > >>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
> > >>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
> > >>is.
> >
> If you have Win95 installed, old DOS is not needed. But if you "think"
> this is not true, good for you. Of course there is no wat someone can
> make you believe this. But that is unimportant :-)
> gci...@concentric.net
I strongly suggest you actually find out what you are talking about
before posting BS
David L Webster
On Sun, 11 May 1997 06:03:10 -0400, traxx <tr...@hell.com> wrote:
>Um.. bullshit.
>
>Dos7 for one thing isn't really dos. It's win95 in a "dos" mode.
Well it looks like you have bought the MS hype hook line and sinker.
If anyone is a canidate for a "wannabe" or an "MS Hack" it's you
because your statement is exactly what MS wants you to believe. The
truth is Windows 95 is DOS 7 (a real mode DOS) and Windows 4. You
do know what the Windows 95 splash screen is doing there when it
starts up right, it's hiding DOS loading. Just hit the esc key and
there in all it's glory (gory) is DOS. You should also know that
with a few tweaks you can boot right to a real mode DOS prompt and
then type Win to get to 95 and then exit back to the DOS prompt, not
to a Win95 "dos" mode but a true real mode DOS. Read Andrew
Schulmans book 'Unathorized Windows 95'. It will be a revelation as
to what Windows 95 really is (and isn't)
In the meantime try this:
1) Format a boot disk with DOS 7, copy fdisk, format, himem, emm386,
smartdrv, and whatever other utilities you want. Go to a new system,
fdisk and format the drive with DOS7. Copy your utilites and create
any CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT you need. Now boot it up, run some
games, load Windows 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups, do whatever you
want. If DOS 7 isn't really DOS, then what is it? DOS 7 is a real
mode stand alone DOS, the same as every other DOS before it, and
that's no MS hype.
>Secondly, dos7 by default uses more base memory.
This is correct, it uses 25k more than DOS 6.22 in a clean boot with
no drivers, not loading DOS high, etc.
> A >Few< games require
>approx. 600k base and in win95 it is virtually impossible, especially if
>you need mscdex, dblspace , etc installed. .
You say it's impossible getting 600k from Win95? Here are three
output samples of the MEM command from my Win95 system. I am using a
single multi config CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT the same one that I
use in DOS 6.22. I'm loading CDROM, mouse drivers and smartdrive. I
don't need dblspace because it's a 2gb drive. I didn't do any
special tweaking (memmaker etc) I'm just throwing drivers into UMB's.
I'm booting to real mode DOS 7.
Extended memory only selection:
Modules using memory below 1 MB:
Name Total Conventional Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 19,344 (19K) 10,544 (10K) 8,800 (9K)
HIMEM 1,104 (1K) 1,104 (1K) 0 (0K)
EMM386 4,320 (4K) 4,320 (4K) 0 (0K)
COMMAND 10,064 (10K) 0 (0K) 10,064 (10K)
MTMCDAI 10,912 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,912 (11K)
MSCDEX 46,640 (46K) 0 (0K) 46,640 (46K)
SMARTDRV 30,368 (30K) 0 (0K) 30,368 (30K)
MOUSE 25,808 (25K) 0 (0K) 25,808 (25K)
Free 681,088 (665K) 639,040 (624K) 42,048 (41K)
Well, that wasn't too hard to get 639k, with 42k of UMB still free.
Here's my selection for expanded memory for those old DOS games that
need it.
Modules using memory below 1 MB:
Name Total Conventional Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 19,344 (19K) 10,544 (10K) 8,800 (9K)
HIMEM 1,104 (1K) 1,104 (1K) 0 (0K)
EMM386 4,320 (4K) 4,320 (4K) 0 (0K)
COMMAND 10,288 (10K) 10,288 (10K) 0 (0K)
SMARTDRV 30,384 (30K) 13,984 (14K) 16,400 (16K)
MTMCDAI 10,912 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,912 (11K)
MSCDEX 46,640 (46K) 0 (0K) 46,640 (46K)
MOUSE 25,808 (25K) 0 (0K) 25,808 (25K)
Free 631,696 (617K) 614,768 (600K) 16,928 (17K)
Since expanded memory uses 32k of umb space, I have a little less, but
still 600k.
Now for those really tough old DOS games I don't load the CDROM
drivers, since most of these were pre CDROM anyway.
Modules using memory below 1 MB:
Name Total Conventional Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 19,328 (19K) 10,544 (10K) 8,784 (9K)
HIMEM 1,104 (1K) 1,104 (1K) 0 (0K)
EMM386 4,320 (4K) 4,320 (4K) 0 (0K)
COMMAND 10,288 (10K) 10,288 (10K) 0 (0K)
MOUSE 25,808 (25K) 0 (0K) 25,808 (25K)
SMARTDRV 29,024 (28K) 0 (0K) 29,024 (28K)
Free 690,608 (674K) 628,752 (614K) 61,856 (60K)
Three options three, times 600k+ conventional memory all from DOS7. I
do have other options to load sound card drivers etc from certain
games that need it, but I still have been able to get as much memory
as I need to run what I want.
>It is rare, but there are
>some things you simply cannot run without using an older version of dos
Yes, just as some things that used to run under 5.0 don't run under
6.x, and things worked under 3.3 stopped working under 5.0, and so on
and so on. But I don't have boot disks of every version of DOS
around, I don't need (or want) this kind of complication. If the app
doesn't work (and it has been rare indeed) I replace it with another
that will. That's the price of progress (I think).
>Despite what the wannabe's on the newsgroups and MS's hacks tell you.
Again, you're in danger of becoming one yourself, don't believe
everything MS tells you.
>The best thing to do is keep a dos62 boot disk configured for maximum
>memory around and make sure it has all the drivers etc on it.
>
That's fine, whatevery people need to do. But to say that it's
impossible is simply not true. Win95 is just another version of the
DOS/Windows operating system combination. There's nothing wrong with
that, simply that MS wants you to believe otherwise. It's not that
difficult to get it to work the way you want if you approach it as DOS
AND Windows.
-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net
Charles Craton
I can tell you that with Qemm8, I got more free conventional (630k) with
DOS 7 boot than I did with 6.22. All the software I need it for (Falcon3)
runs fine. Can't address the "footprint" of 6.22 vs 7.
Chuck
traxx <tr...@hell.com> wrote in article <337599...@hell.com>...
> Um.. bullshit.
>
> Dos7 for one thing isn't really dos. It's win95 in a "dos" mode.
> Secondly, dos7 by default uses more base memory. A >Few< games require
> approx. 600k base and in win95 it is virtually impossible, especially if
> you need mscdex, dblspace , etc installed. It is rare, but there are
> some things you simply cannot run without using an older version of dos.
> Despite what the wannabe's on the newsgroups and MS's hacks tell you.
> The best thing to do is keep a dos62 boot disk configured for maximum
> memory around and make sure it has all the drivers etc on it.
>
>
>
>
>
Jan Mandler
On Sun, 11 May 1997 14:15:43 GMT, d...@bridge.net (David L Webster)
wrote:
>
>>Secondly, dos7 by default uses more base memory.
>
>This is correct, it uses 25k more than DOS 6.22 in a clean boot with
>no drivers, not loading DOS high, etc.
Did you try using the dos=high,umb,NOAUTO in your config.sys? This
will make DOS 7 a bit "smaller".
Pierre Legrand
>>>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>>>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>>>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>
>Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
>back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
>one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
>also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>
>>>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>>>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>>>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>>>is.
>
>hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
>thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
>But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
>but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
>clues at all either.
>
>$0.02
>
>Chris
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
noname
Legrand) wrote:
>>
>
>Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
>Flanker Target
>Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
>Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
>www.papadoc.net
Look who came out of hiding. Are you sure you should be out? After all
OBL is still at large.
I see your web site is full of FUDD niccceee
PAPADOC
a name. Which one of us is in hiding...I will wait whilst you work that little
problem out prick.
PAPADOC
Rat River Cemetary
> Lets see now one of us is using a real name and the other one is using noname as
> a name. Which one of us is in hiding...I will wait whilst you work that little
> problem out prick.
>
> PAPADOC
Pierre Le Grande is your real name? Hehe...doesn't that translate to Big
Pete in English? Were your ancestors lumberjacks from Quebec?
What's all this mumbo jumbo about Dos have to do with modern games and
DirectX? I don't see the connection. And why are you cross-posting to
aus.games and wing-commander?
PAPADOC
PAPADOC