Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

lunduke.locals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#31

Post by zamalek »

hulitu wrote: post #27
zamalek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just done the same thing as the author of the article, only there are Raymond Chen references elsewhere in this thread that contradict your statements.

Raymond Chen stated that there were different OSs running inside win3.1. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20100517-00/?p=14... There was a lot of HW which only had DOS drivers which were loaded prior to starting Windows. Yes, the Windows kernel took the whole thing further but it still relied on MS-DOS for some things.

TSRs (which amount to "DOS drivers") were notoriously flaky with Win3.1. Some requiring installation prior, some requiring installation inside of a guest DOS shell, some just not working at all. More reliable ones (such as MSCDEX) were explicitly compatible with Win3.1 and its IDT.

https://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~heha/vxd/vxd.htm

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#32

Post by lproven »

stuaxo wrote: post #7

I wonder if anyone has managed to run windows apps in seperate vms just like the dos apps were (could you even start Windows in standard mode in one somehow)

There are two projects which did that.

If you were running Windows NT, when running a 16-bit .EXE file, there was a checkbox in the properties dialogue titled something like "run in separate memory space". That launched this particular binary in its own isolated wow16 runtime.

Of course, being an official Microsoft Project slightly reduces how impressive visit.

The other one that I am aware of is that Quarterdeck's DESQview/X could run multiple instances of Windows 3.1 in standard mode in separate windows under a single instance of DESQview.

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#33

Post by stevefan1999 »

parl_match wrote: post #4
https443 wrote: post #2

I always thought this was true.

MS-DOS was not really what people would today consider to be a "true" kernel, as it didn't implement any sort of access controls, boundaries, or other process management functionality. It was more of a set of shared libraries, and also included some standards such as a file system, and program loader format. Even Windows 1.0, which more directly sat on top of MS-DOS, had to implement considerable amounts of functiona…

It can be seen as an exokernel

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#34

Post by lproven »

hulitu wrote: post #24
aww_dang wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there specific claims you would dispute?

Because of the low quality, normally no. But since you asked: DOS was not a bootloader for Win3.1. Win 3.1 cannot run without DOS. There were TSRs which were loaded in DOS which interacted with Win3.1. And multitasking: only one program was active at a time (just like in Android today). When you minimized the program, it was suspended.

None of those individual claims are true.

1. Windows 3.1 can run without DOS. For example: on top of DR DOS, an entirely independent operating system from a different vendor. And of course it also runs on top of OS/2 2.0 and above which is not remotely DOS like in structure. Now yes to be fair that is because IBM had access to the Microsoft source code for Windows 3.0 and 3.1. Even so it falsifies your statement.

2. Your claim about multitasking is wrong and it is specifically refuted in the article that you are criticising.

2a. Under Windows 3.0 and 3.1, Windows binaries multitask cooperatively, and programs can and do run in the background. You can minimise the program and it will keep working. Four example you could minimise a comms program that is doing a download of a dial-up, and keep working in some other application. Your download would continue. I used this in production from 2.01 up until Windows for Workgroups 3.11. It was Windows 3 – it was very unstable – so you have to be extremely careful with what you did, but it was possible.

2b. As the article specifically spells out, Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were able to pre-emptively multitask DOS applications. So although Windows binaries were only cooperatively multitasked, DOS binaries were pre-empted... which was necessary because MS-DOS didn't support multitasking. And just for the sake of clarity, this did not require a 386: they were able to multitask DOS apps even on 8086, although that ability wasn't much use, because you wouldn't have enough available memory on an 8086 to run two or more DOS programs at once. But you could demonstrate it with tiny DOS applications like say `pkzip`. The relevance of a 386 and 386 enhanced mode to this was memory management - Windows 3 could use V86 mode to give each DOS program 640 kB RAM.

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#36

Post by lproven »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #17
musicale wrote: post #13

> Win386 ran individual "V8086" processes -- which was a key feature of the Intel 386 processor running in Protected Mode -- in a completely preemptive multitasking way. What about Win286/running Windows 3.1 on an 80286?

On a 286, Windows 3.1 ran in 'standard' mode, so it had only cooperative multitasking. Preemptive multitasking was confined to 386 or higher, on which Windows 3.1 ran in 'enhanced mode'.

That's not right... see my reply above.

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#37

Post by pjmlp »

musicale wrote: post #15
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But add to that, they were crappy drivers. Minimal things just to ship the product. No support for thread-safe or isolation or anything. In fact, they just looped on i/o ports waiting for device completion - no dma, no interrupts, nothing. Enough to boot. But worthless for any real OS.

If you're running a single app (e.g. a game, or WordStar), adding a "real" OS usually doesn't buy you much in terms of raw performance (though maybe you get better responsiveness during background printing or other multitasking.) In fact a "real" OS tends to add overhead. Games are notoriously performance-intensive, and early 1990s PC games tend to run well on DOS - Windows just adds overhead. For that matter, many a…

Hence why WinG was created, DirectX's predecessor.

It was the first attempt to move game studios into Windows 3.x.

Another piece of history that will be lost as there are so few of us that remember it and it is badly documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG

https://www.uvlist.net/groups/info/wingapi

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#38

Post by vetinari »

lproven wrote: post #34
hulitu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the low quality, normally no. But since you asked: DOS was not a bootloader for Win3.1. Win 3.1 cannot run without DOS. There were TSRs which were loaded in DOS which interacted with Win3.1. And multitasking: only one program was active at a time (just like in Android today). When you minimized the program, it was suspended.

None of those individual claims are true. 1. Windows 3.1 can run without DOS. For example: on top of DR DOS, an entirely independent operating system from a different vendor. And of course it also runs on top of OS/2 2.0 and above which is not remotely DOS like in structure. Now yes to be fair that is because IBM had access to the Microsoft source code for Windows 3.0 and 3.1. Even so it falsifies your statement. 2.…

> 1. Windows 3.1 can run without DOS. For example: on top of DR DOS, an entirely independent operating system from a different vendor. And of course it also runs on top of OS/2 2.0 and above which is not remotely DOS like in structure. Now yes to be fair that is because IBM had access to the Microsoft source code for Windows 3.0 and 3.1. Even so it falsifies your statement

You are mixing up the terms here.

Windows 3.1 cannot run without DOS.

Windows 3.1 can run without MS DOS.

The difference is, that you provide other DOS implementation. It cannot run if you remove it. It was not able to boot itself, the launcher itself (win.com) was DOS executable.

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#39

Post by hulitu »

lproven wrote: post #34
hulitu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the low quality, normally no. But since you asked: DOS was not a bootloader for Win3.1. Win 3.1 cannot run without DOS. There were TSRs which were loaded in DOS which interacted with Win3.1. And multitasking: only one program was active at a time (just like in Android today). When you minimized the program, it was suspended.

None of those individual claims are true. 1. Windows 3.1 can run without DOS. For example: on top of DR DOS, an entirely independent operating system from a different vendor. And of course it also runs on top of OS/2 2.0 and above which is not remotely DOS like in structure. Now yes to be fair that is because IBM had access to the Microsoft source code for Windows 3.0 and 3.1. Even so it falsifies your statement. 2.…

> 1. Windows 3.1 can run without DOS. For example: on top of DR DOS, an entirely independent operating system from a different vendor.

So it still needs DOS. I mean you cannot boot directly in win.com.

Re: Myth: Windows 3.1 was just a shell on top of DOS

#40

Post by signaru »

lproven wrote: post #32
stuaxo wrote: post #7

I wonder if anyone has managed to run windows apps in seperate vms just like the dos apps were (could you even start Windows in standard mode in one somehow)

There are two projects which did that. If you were running Windows NT, when running a 16-bit .EXE file, there was a checkbox in the properties dialogue titled something like "run in separate memory space". That launched this particular binary in its own isolated wow16 runtime. Of course, being an official Microsoft Project slightly reduces how impressive visit. The other one that I am aware of is that Quarterdeck's D…

Could what winevdm be doing on 64bit Windows be considered the same? (I find it very interesting but don't know enough to tell if it should be considered an example)
Post reply on HN