Win 3.11 clone
Silver Hawke
which will run ALL of windows 3.11 application,
I was something I did to show you can build an OS which is 100% compatible
with the most popular OS out there....
on top of that I'm giving it away for free, so if anyone whats a copy.
please just let me know.
Tim Robinson
news:ZGMr8.34422$9N1.5...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
I once thought about how to go about writing a Windows 3.x clone (I'm not
sure that it is the most popular OS about) and I decided that it would be
difficult to write it such that you ended up with the same internals. The
design requirements of the Windows 3.x family are fairly different from
those of modern operating systems: at the time, Microsoft wanted to retain
compatibility with DOS and get the most out of the CPUs of the day (i.e. the
80286).
I think that writing a Windows 3.x clone wouldn't be impossible, but to
write an improved Windows 3.x would be very hard.
--
Tim Robinson
http://www.themoebius.org.uk/
Silver Hawke
3.11 as well as 95,98,2000,etc software.
i find this to be the right way of doing it, start with something less
complex, windows 3.11 is relative less complex as windows
XP, but running windows 3.11 software is something that any veriosn of
windows I decide to clone should be able to run.
also I get some people saying, I wrote an emulator for windows, etc, etc,
this is a stand alone OS, which just happens to run all of windows 3.11 Apps
( Windows has always been advertised like the most popular OS on earth, your
are right it might not actually be) most colleges seem to use UNIX ( at
least they did) most graphics peopel seem to use the MAC, however it does
seem like everyone in my neighboor hood for the most part uses windows.
imagine if all those people did not have to buy windows to run all of
windows application.
after I finish this I know I will be more willing to put in the time to
build a 95 compatible OS, plus I know my friends and family will get a kick
out
of this.
as to improving windows 3.11m it ill be easy, this OS was about 90 yaesr ago
right? imagine all the new ideas in OS, that have some out since then, I
dson't think it will be hard, I really thing I can get a few new features
in. would you like a copy? you can go and load it on an old PC, ifyou like.
I guarantee it is 100% written by myself and it is still a very usefull OS,
pus you can run allyou windows stuff on it.
"Tim Robinson" <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a8stst$uusmc$2...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...
Silver Hawke
compiler tasm 2... so I am using the technology of that day.
"Tim Robinson" <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a8stst$uusmc$2...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...
Tim Robinson
| If I were to write an XP clone, it would still have to run DOS, and
windows
| 3.11 as well as 95,98,2000,etc software.
NT/2000/XP are different. Windows 3.x is built on top of DOS, and it uses
DOS for various OS services; as such, it is really just a large DOS extender
(DOSX.EXE/KRNL386.EXE) with a graphical shell (GUI.EXE/USER.EXE). NT is a
complete operating system with a proper kernel (NTOSKRNL.EXE and others).
| i find this to be the right way of doing it, start with something less
| complex, windows 3.11 is relative less complex as windows
| XP, but running windows 3.11 software is something that any veriosn of
| windows I decide to clone should be able to run.
I would argue that it would be easier to design an NT/Unix-style OS because
these operating systems conform to accepted OS design.
| also I get some people saying, I wrote an emulator for windows, etc, etc,
| this is a stand alone OS, which just happens to run all of windows 3.11
Apps
| ( Windows has always been advertised like the most popular OS on earth,
your
| are right it might not actually be) most colleges seem to use UNIX ( at
| least they did) most graphics peopel seem to use the MAC, however it does
| seem like everyone in my neighboor hood for the most part uses windows.
| imagine if all those people did not have to buy windows to run all of
| windows application.
Virtually all Windows applications nowadays are 32-bit and expect to run
under Win32. Moreover, I think that more and more operating systems will
start to rely on NT features as Win9x starts to (rightly) drop away.
| after I finish this I know I will be more willing to put in the time to
| build a 95 compatible OS, plus I know my friends and family will get a
kick
| out
| of this.
Compatible with Windows 95 how? Compatible with Win32, or bug-for-bug
compatible with Windows 95?
| as to improving windows 3.11m it ill be easy, this OS was about 90 yaesr
ago
| right? imagine all the new ideas in OS, that have some out since then, I
| dson't think it will be hard, I really thing I can get a few new features
| in.
That's the point: the core of 16-bit Windows was designed about 18 years ago
for very different machines to the ones we're using today. It isn't an
operating system: DOS and BIOS are the operating system; 16-bit Windows is
just a graphical shell and, in the later versions (Windows/386 and later) a
built-in DOS extended which uses protected mode to allow access to all the
PC's memory.
How would you improve it without changing the concept of the thing? Windows
3.x was very much built around the 286/386: 16-bit protected mode,
segmentation, dubious protection between applications and the 'kernel'.
Windows 95 was very much an improved Windows 3.11: it inherited these design
points but tried to build a modern OS around them. As such, it is slow and
unreliable. Did you know that there is 2GB of vital Windows 95 kernel data
structures mapped read/write into every process's address space? That is is
easy for an application to enter ring 0 by virtue of the fact that the
bottom 1MB is mapped, 1:1 virtual-to-physical, read-write, into every
process?
If you really wanted to improve Windows 3.x for modern systems you'd have to
write Windows 95 without Windows 95's faults. What would be the result? You
would have Windows NT (with wowexec.exe, capable of emulating Windows 3.11
for 16-bit applications), or Linux (with some DOSEMU/WINE combination).
| would you like a copy? you can go and load it on an old PC, ifyou like.
| I guarantee it is 100% written by myself and it is still a very usefull
OS,
| pus you can run allyou windows stuff on it.
Yes please! If you really have managed to get around Windows 3.x's design
limitations* and retain compatibility, I'd be interested to see how you've
gone about it.
--
* I'm avoiding the word 'faults', because, as I said, Windows was limited by
the hardware of the time.
Silver Hawke
early 90's.
(not 90 years ago, thats does not make sense.)
"Silver Hawke" <noe...@please.com> wrote in message
news:PMns8.109406$in3.29...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Silver Hawke
software people would say its not 100%
windows compatible.
as to being a layer on top of DOS, your right thats what windows 3.11 is,
but it did not stop MS from hyping it to be a revolution at that time.
its a fair assumption to say that building this as relatively simple as it
may be compare to NT, will give people an option.
as to emulators, I really don't like building that I want something native.
the truth is I'm working on several things, from compilers to this OS, to my
own version of DOS, I don't like depending on someone else's software. it
will be a good step.
and from what I heard, win 95 was also built on top of dos 7.0, although MS
said it was not. and I know many people who are still using 95.
again, I said many time, that yes, relatatively speaking win 3.11 is far
less complex that other windows version.
but I'll work on several projects even if it means delaying this one a bit,
I know there are much more interesting stuff that win 3.11
Tim rilley If I were to build some amazing product that runs on top of
windows NT, or windows XP server, my clients would still
have to dish out quiet a few bucks for windows NT, or XP or whatever, plus
how would DR-DOS feel if they could purchase the rights to an OS which is
100% compatible with windows at lest windows 98, they have been fighting
with MS that people should be able to bundle DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS with
their windows system, what would IBM say if ther OS/2 system had actually
been 100% compatible with windows... how would things be different today.
instead of using VBScript in and ASP type of enviroment, most student would
probably by using some REXX(I don't know much about rexx), or some other IBM
technology.
and If someone like myself a single person can build an OS which apparently
took MS yaers and millions to build what would that say about MS? there are
many things people do becuase ther are cutting edge, something people do
stuff, becuase symbolically it says something about the people who dominate
the computer industry.
why is MS the biggest company out there, when at the beginning the MAC was
supperior to windows.. one was becuase it was affordable, both the hardware
and the software, but not because their code was supperior in anyway.
I won't make any money out of this, I would probably make more building some
system like Vignette that runs on windows ( :-0) ), but I think
one poor shmuch like myself, building OS's like the team at microsoft, or
compiler like borlan, in a short period of time, with tools that cost no
more that a few dollars says something about this huge technology companies.
heck if it was up to me, we would replace VB with Delphi anyday, I belive
its a more elegant language, but MS controsl the OS, and ASP uses VBscript
as a default as a result.
I just want to make one comment, if I can do this, what happed to IBM,
why did they let microsoft dominate. why was OS/2 such a disapointment (well
most people said back when OS/2 came out that it was supperior to MS, but
they put MS's OS on the computer they shipped out... what were they
thinking?) when their technology is not that complex.... it may seem complex
as most things do when you use them, but when you actually start building
something similar, all you can think is
why in the world, I'm I not the riechest guy on earth, I build this stuff
and Id di not take a large team of developers to do it, an dif I can do this
why in the world am I not a lead developer at MS. :-) (you can hire me any
day, guys I sell out easily... LOL, I'll take les thatyour lead developer
LOL)
anyways, I'm keeping hours of the time it will take me to build it, and
compare it to the time MS took to build theirs. lest see how I compare.
"Tim Robinson" <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a8t2sl$ue4a7$1...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...
Nicholas Brown
Silver Hawke
> Even so, they wouldn't get it until fifteen minutes before the official
> launch--and the lack of it cost IBM many millions of dollars.
>
> The Microsoft game is "It's either all Microsoft, or you get nothing at
> all.". They don't recognize "Let's just be friends.".
>
> By the way, much of OS/2 code is in Windows NT. OS/2 was initially a
> joint project of IBM and Microsoft; I still have some screen dumps around
> that show "Microsoft OS/2 blabla". When Microsoft decided they had
> learned enough, they severed the ties and went on peddling the jointly
> developed technology--and denying the same to IBM.
>
but still how can a company that is supposed to be so huge in scope, let
them self
get "tricked" by microsoft that way, why could they not have hired their own
developer
or at least made some of the microsoft developers an offer to join IBM full
time,
first they lost the DOS market, but they did not learn, then went on to
loose the windows
market also. not very smart for such a large organization.
oh and as I remember, Os/2 run most of windows application, it never ran
"all" of it.
lacking full compatability. as to microsoft denying the technology to IBM,
from my building of my clone,
it seemed like a good part of the work is done by DOS, which IBM had PC-dos,
a 100% MS-DOS compatible
system, they had the technology, it was a simple link to putting it all
together.
Silver Hawke
everytime I encounter a problem its mostly a certain interrupt call which I
have not implemented, etc.
so I do have half way more to go.
"Nicholas Brown" <neb...@nebrown.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a8ulel$kqa$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tim Robinson
| I'm about half way, enough to seem it execute certain apps.
| everytime I encounter a problem its mostly a certain interrupt call which
I
| have not implemented, etc.
| so I do have half way more to go.
Do you have some source we could look at? Or a web page? I'm curious... :)
I wouldn't have thought that 16-bit Windows used many interrupts (what with
DLL linkage) except on the DPMI side of things. However, I'm not too
familiar with the way the virtual machine monitor (the closest thing Small
Windows has to a kernel) works.
What's your information source for this thing? The Windows 3.1 DDK? Or just
the results of observing Windows' behaviour?
Silver Hawke
not on any machine which
is connected to the net.
I'll send you a copy when I'm finished with it.
plus this way, I know who has a copy.
as to the DLL and
"Tim Robinson" <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a8vijh$vn65p$1...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...
Nicholas Brown
if so how do u replicate all the calls that it makes? I mean, where do u
find them from? Is the actual Win3.1 open source?
Nick
Silver Hawke <noe...@please.com> wrote in message
news:KAIs8.82269$9N1.6...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Tim Robinson
| I've had my server go under attack by hackers, so to protect my code, its
| not on any machine which
| is connected to the net.
|
| I'll send you a copy when I'm finished with it.
|
| plus this way, I know who has a copy.
Why not sign up for an account with SourceForge? (sourceforge.net) You can
put your source and/or your binaries up there. In particular, I use the CVS
as a backup for my source code, in case my development machine explodes.
Silver Hawke
WORD.
No windows is not Open Source.... not that I know of. it does not sound like
microsoft to give his code away.
it takes a bit more effect an research in my part to get it run windows
Apps.
but MS never gave me a line of their code, Nicholas I'll send you a copy
also.
guys I'm taking a few days off to have some fun,but I promise, no strings
attach, anyone who asks me for it.
I will be more than happy to send them a copy of it.
"Nicholas Brown" <neb...@nebrown.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a8vl23$8fo$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Silver Hawke
for years
and does ton seem to be going any where.
I like my approach, I have full control of my code. plus even though I'm
giving it away
I get to retain the right to my code.
"Tim Robinson" <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a8vlcb$u8vuj$1...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...
Tim Robinson
| I have seen that site, someone has been working on an Open Source Windows
| for years
| and does ton seem to be going any where.
|
| I like my approach, I have full control of my code. plus even though I'm
| giving it away
| I get to retain the right to my code.
There's no reason why you should lose your right to your code simply by
making it available. In fact, AFAIK UK law says that, in the absence of a
copyright notice, your code will be copyrighted to you by default. You have
to explicitly give it away (which is what the GPL is about).
I've seen several Windows clones; all of them offer to replace Windows but
none of them have actually produced any code. Lindows and BoxOS were the
main ones; both of them have folded after a lot of arguing between the
developers and writing of random design documents.
According to my web page, Mobius will offer Windows support; that will be
implemented a long way down the line, if at all.
Nicholas Brown
runs like a bomb, shame they cant make XP etc run like a bomb - id expect
bill gate's employees are trying to be shit so Bill Gates feels he is a god
programmer
Nick
Wildman <best...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb49768....@news.caveland.net...
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:59:45 +0001, Thorsten Glaser
> <nc-gl...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
> >begin electrogrammati illius Silver Hawke
> >
> >>Guys the reason I asked abot the interupts is that I'm finishsing up an
OS
> >>which will run ALL of windows 3.11 application,
> >
> >Off-topic. Windows 3.11 is not an Operating System.
> >
> >-Thorsten
> >end
> If you want to get technical, neither is 95 or 98. Eventhough
> MS wants us to think otherwise, dos is still the underlying OS.
>
> <Wildman>
Tim Robinson
| id rather run 98 than NT/2000/XP though! Try win 3.1 on ur moden computer,
| runs like a bomb, shame they cant make XP etc run like a bomb - id expect
| bill gate's employees are trying to be shit so Bill Gates feels he is a
god
| programmer
This is the talk of a man who hasn't tried NT! :) The NT series really is
better than 95 series, both technically and for users. I've not had NT or
2000 crash in a long time.
Silver Hawke
not on a machine which I would not want to take the risk of a virus.
"Thorsten Glaser" <nc-gl...@netcologne.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.43.020410...@arx.rog.eu.tc...
> --
> _ _ __ _
> / \._ _ ._ |_)(_ | \ ._ o._ _ __ ._ _ o._ _
> \_/|_)(/_| ||_)__)|_/ |_)|| |(/_ | |(_) \/|||_|_>
> | |
>
Nicholas Brown
extreemly annoyed by it speed. Ok, granted, they are only 500Mhz, but its
still quite slow! For network stuff then NT is better than the 95/98 series
but that was not what I was meaning. For a stand alone computer like mine
then its simply wasting memory etc having those cause its filled with
network protocols I will never need (I know win 98 and 95 have some, but not
as many.) Also, in NT a slice of processor will be cut off to security, on a
stand alone this aint important.
Im not saying NT and 2000 are bad, there is a lot of serious stuff going on
under the hood, but then again, RISCOS or Amiga Workbench never used to
crash and it was a hell of a lot faster (even loading workbench off a
floppy!) Shame they cant make O/s like those anymore - I know in some
respects they were far INferior, but with some expert programming, they
could have been improved. Also, I never found a way to break RISCOs, its
indestructable - probably cause it was on ROM which also made it load
faster, shame MS have to have loads of service packs or else their O/s could
be on ROM also - may make it harder to change O/s but for networked machines
it would probably be better - where a technition is looking after the
computer
Nick
Tim Robinson <timothy.rem...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a92bbv$10h168$1...@ID-103400.news.dfncis.de...