Windows 2.03
Leon Howell
and I've been wondering, why don't I hear more about MS Windows 2.03?
It really doesn't look too bad.
Of course some people will hate it just because it's windows, but I
always hated windows because of the code bloat. 3.0 takes 1 Meg ram
and would waste most of a 20-Meg drive! But 2.03 will run in 640k and
one 1.44 Meg, possibly 720k, floppy.
What's wrong with it? I understand not hearing about it on an upgrade
(downgrade?) every minute windows newsgroup, but why not here?
Auric__
Well, I imagine because this is a DOS group, not a Windows group.
I personally have never used Win2.x, but from what I've read, it's the
"worst" version ever made.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com
*****
If it's too loud, you're too old.
Александр Зикин
Sorry. I'm do not speake english.
Yesterday I'm installing Windows v1.01 (under DOS 3.30). It required 640k
RAM and two 5-25 fdd...
Good information about old computers and old OS you can take from
www.fdd5-25.net.
Also aviable Windows v.2.03.
Windows this is programm for DOS.
Please if you had some information about it send it me.
The best wishes,
Alexander.
Leon Howell
A windows group would run me off for not downgrading. At this level,
Windows was not an os but a dos extention (it even had a command line
window) with a few applications.
> I personally have never used Win2.x, but from what I've read, it's the
> "worst" version ever made.
How? I can't imagine anything being worse than 1.01.
Auric__
>> Well, I imagine because this is a DOS group, not a Windows group.
>
>A windows group would run me off for not downgrading. At this level,
>Windows was not an os but a dos extention (it even had a command line
>window) with a few applications.
Yes, I'm well aware; Win3.x was what I thought of when I thought
"Windows" until about 1998.
>> I personally have never used Win2.x, but from what I've read, it's the
>> "worst" version ever made.
>
>How? I can't imagine anything being worse than 1.01.
Couldn't tell ya; can't remember what others have said. And like I said,
I've never used v2.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com
*****
Reality is a constant intrusion on my dreams.
Bill Leary
> >> "worst" version ever made.
> >
> >How? I can't imagine anything being worse than 1.01.
>
> Couldn't tell ya; can't remember what others have said. And like I said,
> I've never used v2.
I've run every version since 1.x.
It's a personal opinion, of course, but that was the worst. On the other
hand, it didn't do much so it didn't crash much either. :)
I've still got a copy of it (well, copies of them) around here somewhere. I
put 2.x up on a Poquet PC a while ago as an experiment. It ran, as I
recall, but with some problems.
The interesting (and perhaps almost on-topic aspect for comp.os.msdos) was
that it was still really clear you were dealing with a graphical shell over
DOS. When you exited 1.x or 2.x you ended up at C:\> again.
- Bill
Leon Howell
> hand, it didn't do much so it didn't crash much either. :)
please excuse my focusion, but are you refering here to 1.x or 2.x?
> The interesting (and perhaps almost on-topic aspect for comp.os.msdos) was
> that it was still really clear you were dealing with a graphical shell over
> DOS. When you exited 1.x or 2.x you ended up at C:\> again.
That (and the fact that I don't want to deal with Snob 3.0 for
windows) is why I came here. I think win 1/2.x would almost be off
topic in comp.os.wondows because it's so close to dos.
There are two reasons I'm interested in Windows 2.03. First, I can run
Dos applications, and have a cool accessory package (calenar,
calculator, terminal, note pad, and clip board)that wouldn't otherwize
be available; second, I can run more than one dos app at once, and
even integrate data between otherwise incompatible applications.
Bill Leary
news:ae64f04a.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > It's a personal opinion, of course, but that was the worst. On the
other
> > hand, it didn't do much so it didn't crash much either. :)
>
> please excuse my focusion, but are you refering here to 1.x or 2.x?
1.x.
> > The interesting (and perhaps almost on-topic aspect for comp.os.msdos)
was
> > that it was still really clear you were dealing with a graphical shell
over
> > DOS. When you exited 1.x or 2.x you ended up at C:\> again.
>
> That (and the fact that I don't want to deal with Snob 3.0 for
> windows) is why I came here. I think win 1/2.x would almost be off
> topic in comp.os.wondows because it's so close to dos.
In the generic windows groups it SHOULD be on topic, but I suspect you're
right. But it's also probably off topic here. I don't have the charter or
faq handy to check.
> There are two reasons I'm interested in Windows 2.03. First, I can run
> Dos applications, and have a cool accessory package (calenar,
> calculator, terminal, note pad, and clip board)that wouldn't otherwize
> be available; second, I can run more than one dos app at once, and
> even integrate data between otherwise incompatible applications.
My recollection is that you can NOT run more than one DOS application at a
time under 2.x. When you ran a DOS task the multitasker (strictly
cooperative under 1.x & 2.x) stopped dead. Under 3.x DOS tasks ran
pre-emptively and Windows tasks ran (mostly) cooperatively.
And I think we're getting further and further afield of comp.os.msdos
on-topic. I wonder, would DESQview be on-topic here?
- Bill
colone...@yahoo.com
>
>
> "Leon Howell" <purita...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae64f04a.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > It's a personal opinion, of course, but that was the worst. On the
> other
> > > hand, it didn't do much so it didn't crash much either. :)
my vote for worst would be ME... tho all i've used of 1.x & 2.x is the
"single application edition"
> > There are two reasons I'm interested in Windows 2.03. First, I can run
> > Dos applications, and have a cool accessory package (calenar,
> > calculator, terminal, note pad, and clip board)that wouldn't otherwize
> > be available; second, I can run more than one dos app at once, and
> > even integrate data between otherwise incompatible applications.
>
> And I think we're getting further and further afield of comp.os.msdos
> on-topic. I wonder, would DESQview be on-topic here?
Probably a discussion of Desqview should be moved to
comp.os.msdos.desqview, but a plug of it and a pointer to that group
is hopefully ok:
Desqview is a nice task switcher and text based windowing
system for dos. On a 386+ it can do preemptive multitasking
and there is a 386+ version called desqview/X
It's been semi-officially abandonwared by semantec and is available at
http://www.chsoft.com/dv.html
3ch
Bill Leary
news:20040430085340...@bunrab.ronnet.moc...
> my vote for worst would be ME... tho all i've used of 1.x & 2.x is the
> "single application edition"
I used those too, but I also had the "real" versions as well.
My experience with ME seems to be unique somehow. Most people seem to rail
against it, but of all the versions I've used (including NT and it's
decendants) it's the one I've had the least trouble with.
> > And I think we're getting further and further afield of comp.os.msdos
> > on-topic. I wonder, would DESQview be on-topic here?
>
> Probably a discussion of Desqview should be moved to
> comp.os.msdos.desqview, but a plug of it and a pointer
> to that group is hopefully ok:
Oh, there it is. I tried looking it up and didn't find one. Must have
spelled it wrong in the search. Thanks.
> Desqview is a nice task switcher and text based windowing
> system for dos.
I agree. Very handy.
> On a 386+ it can do preemptive multitasking
> and there is a 386+ version called desqview/X
Yes, used that one too. I always had a hard time getting it tuned to each
system I used it on, but once over the intial bumps it seemed to work quite
nicely.
> It's been semi-officially abandonwared by semantec and is available at
> http://www.chsoft.com/dv.html
Good info. To the original poster: If what you're after is a DOS task
switcher, unless there are aspects not obvious in your messages, this is
probably a better solution.
- Bill
Leon Howell
> time under 2.x. When you ran a DOS task the multitasker (strictly
> cooperative under 1.x & 2.x) stopped dead. Under 3.x DOS tasks ran
> pre-emptively and Windows tasks ran (mostly) cooperatively.
The GUI gallery has a copy of an old article showing MS Basic-86
(predecessor of GW-Basic?) running in a window, so I assumed if you
wrote a .PIF for it, this should be possible with any "well behaved"
DOS program-that is, those that do system calls instead of doing
everything on there own; but then I got the idea most dos programs did
that anyway.
Am I as think as I confused I am?
> And I think we're getting further and further afield of comp.os.msdos
> on-topic.
The discussion of DOS system calls and compatability sould bring it
back a little. Maybe I should have gone to comp.os.msdos.apps in the
first place? I suppose it's possible to move the thread over there.
> I wonder, would DESQview be on-topic here?
To a point, I don't see why not. Of course, there is a
comp.os.msdos.deskview . Maybe we need a comp.os.msdos.windows . And,
again, remember this isn't really Windows in the modern sense; It's a
graphical shell for MS-DOS ;)
Bill Leary
> The GUI gallery has a copy of an old article showing MS Basic-86
> (predecessor of GW-Basic?) running in a window, so I assumed if you
> wrote a .PIF for it, this should be possible with any "well behaved"
> DOS program-that is, those that do system calls instead of doing
> everything on there own; but then I got the idea most dos programs did
> that anyway.
>
> Am I as think as I confused I am?
You've got me wondering now. I'll have to see if it's still on that Poquet
and see if, for example, I start up the clock and a DOS session at the same
time if the clock stops. My recollection was that it did, but now I'm
wondering if, while the DOS program is out in what it thinks is BIOS waiting
for a keystroke the multitasker isn't allowed to round-robin the Windows
tasks.
- Bill
Leon Howell
> and see if, for example, I start up the clock and a DOS session at the same
> time if the clock stops. My recollection was that it did, but now I'm
> wondering if, while the DOS program is out in what it thinks is BIOS waiting
> for a keystroke the multitasker isn't allowed to round-robin the Windows
> tasks.
I wasn't aware that Windows 2.03 did true multitasking, I thought it
was just task switching. Anyway, The reason I'm interested in it is to
use MS-Works 2.0 for Windows (if compatible, if not, then Write and
whatever good database & spreadsheet will work-suggestions?) and
GW-Basic or maybe VBDOS (if it can act just like GW-Basic) in windows,
with the Win 2.03 accessory package that I like.
Bill Leary
> I wasn't aware that Windows 2.03 did true multitasking, I thought it
> was just task switching.
When running Windows programs it does cooperative multitasking. That's
"true" multitasking, and some real world jobs have been solved using it
(such as medical systems). Some folks will argue that only pre-emptive
multitasking is "true" multitasking, and depending on their application,
they may have a point. If that's your feeling, then it doesn't.
> Anyway, The reason I'm interested in it is to use MS-Works 2.0 for
> Windows (if compatible, if not, then Write and
> whatever good database & spreadsheet will work-suggestions?) and
> GW-Basic or maybe VBDOS (if it can act just like GW-Basic)
> in windows, with the Win 2.03 accessory package that I like.
I can't say about any of those.
- Bill
Leon Howell
> "true" multitasking, and some real world jobs have been solved using it
> (such as medical systems). Some folks will argue that only pre-emptive
> multitasking is "true" multitasking, and depending on their application,
> they may have a point. If that's your feeling, then it doesn't.
I don't even know the difference. All I know is if all applications in
memory get cpu time, it's multitasking, if only one does at a time,
it's task switching.
The main thing I'm interested in is running DOS applications in
windows. Can I do that? How?
colone...@yahoo.com
>
>
> > When running Windows programs it does cooperative multitasking. That's
> > "true" multitasking, and some real world jobs have been solved using it
> > (such as medical systems). Some folks will argue that only pre-emptive
> > multitasking is "true" multitasking, and depending on their application,
> > they may have a point. If that's your feeling, then it doesn't.
>
> I don't even know the difference. All I know is if all applications in
> memory get cpu time, it's multitasking, if only one does at a time,
> it's task switching.
Task switching -> one prgram runs at a time until you cause the system to
swith to another, preserving the state of the prgram so you can come back,
You cound do this with dosshell (might that do what you need?) and DR-DOS
(does FreeDOS have a task swither?)
cooperative -> a program runs a while & gives control back to the os
(possibly by allowing the os to handle a timer interupt and switch to
another task --on such systems a prgram that take over the timer may
never give control back to the os. If it's crashed the system has too)
To some extent this is windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 and ME and MacOS <9
Preemptive --The os won't let the program take over the timer and will
always switch the task. NT 4.0, 2000 and XP, *nix & OS/X, although I
understand XP can be told to allow programs to crash the system if you
want it to. I'm in the "this is TRUE (tm) multitasking" camp.
NT <4.0, MacOS 9 and win 1 & 2 I'm unsure about.
>
> The main thing I'm interested in is running DOS applications in
> windows. Can I do that? How?
>
Do you need windows? i.e. do you need to -see- more than one at a time?
Under desqview the widows are in the standard text font, so if you make
the window smaller you get less info --you can have two 25x40 charactor
windows with different apps runnig. Most programs don't know about this,
so you see half of each line. 12x80 windows show whole lines, but are
almost as anoying. You -can- run in 53 line mode and get two 25x80
windows. On a 386+ you can definitely run DOS programs in the backgound
and switch quickly between full screen window w/ DesqView, which is what
I usually do (possible due to influence of MINIX/Console Linux/*BSD's
alt-Fn virtual console swithing). I don't recall if you could on a 286.
3ch
Leon Howell
> > windows. Can I do that? How?
> >
> Do you need windows? i.e. do you need to -see- more than one at a time?
Sometimes, with the type of desk top publishing I want to do, it can
be very convinient.
> Under desqview the widows are in the standard text font, so if you make
> the window smaller you get less info --you can have two 25x40 charactor
> windows with different apps runnig. Most programs don't know about this,
> so you see half of each line. 12x80 windows show whole lines, but are
> almost as anoying. You -can- run in 53 line mode and get two 25x80
> windows.
MS Works 2.0 for Windows will change the displayed line length to the
length of the window. Mostly, though, I want to switch between apps
quickly-for example, by clicking on the icon at the bottom of the win
2.03 screen, or selecting task switch from the DeskMate accessory
menu, or selecting the window I want from the Works Window menu. I
really don't like windows that are smaller than the screen most of the
time.
I'm using a V20 and I won't upgrade. Does Desqview have the type of
accessory package Windows, DeskMate, etc., have? How many apps will it
run in 640k? Will the calendar work with dates from 0001 to 9999?
Ajax®
wrote:
Have you tried Ventura Publisher for desktop publishing? The early
versions ran on GEM. May be worth a look.
ACC17901.COM
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Looking to find a match/hookup/sex partner?
http://acc17901.com:1000/match/index.html
"Leon Howell" <purita...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae64f04a.04042...@posting.google.com...