[HN Gopher] Smashing the Limits: Installing Windows XP in DOSBox-X
___________________________________________________________________
Smashing the Limits: Installing Windows XP in DOSBox-X
Author : whereistimbo
Score : 138 points
Date : 2024-10-31 16:32 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fabulous.systems)
(TXT) w3m dump (fabulous.systems)
| xattt wrote:
| Were there any shims or workarounds (specific to an upgrade path
| from a DOS-based Windows) that were left in place in XP to keep
| things chugging along?
|
| I'm wondering whether a clean install worked more efficiently
| versus an upgraded install.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Clean install failed directly. Without a hiccup at the very
| first file. Only taking the upgrading route via W2000 it
| worked.
| felsqualle wrote:
| Correct, that was the only way to get things working.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Cool and all but what is wrong with qemu, virtualbox, etc?
| bravetraveler wrote:
| IIRC one can have some issues with virtualization - dynamic
| clocks and sheer speed, where emulation has benefits
|
| One can emulate with the others, sure, but not all equal.
| Accuracy is a comparison benchmark
| ziddoap wrote:
| They are less fun (to the author).
|
| > _This is what I like about emulation and playing around with
| those systems so much._
| yazzku wrote:
| Not as much pizzazz.
| bri3d wrote:
| Why Dosbox/Dosbox-X instead of qemu or VirtualBox in general?
| Dosbox and Dosbox-X focus much more heavily on accurate
| emulation, rather than fast virtualization. Peripherals are
| implemented to match the original period-correct hardware,
| rather than as a "good enough" view or cooperative facade
| requiring guest support. Weird CPU errata (like specific carry
| register behavior) is implemented.
|
| Why the author chose Dosbox-X to try to run Windows XP? It
| sounds like Because They Can.
| smaudet wrote:
| Ooh.
|
| This makes me very much want to tinker with DosBox myself.
|
| Qemu can IIRC do similar things with drivers but possibly
| because it was co-opted to run android emulator imgs (which
| are all very standard and boring), it seemed difficult to
| tinker with custom drivers and emulated hardware.
|
| The above could just be my own inexperience talking, but
| examples are one of the best ways to learn, if DosBox-X takes
| extra care that's noteworthy at least.
| zamalek wrote:
| > Because They Can.
|
| It's probably also a great way to find bugs.
| Dwedit wrote:
| Unfortunately, CPU accuracy is not one of DOSBox's focuses.
|
| If you install the "Recommended" build of DOSBox-X from the
| website, then proceed to install the default "Visual Studio
| build (64-bit)", you get buggy and inaccurate CPU emulation.
|
| How do you know it's buggy and inaccurate? Run QBasic, and
| PRINT VAL("5"). You get 4.99999999999.
|
| But...
|
| You get the correct result if you are using a 32-bit build.
| You get the correct result on all non-MSVC builds. You get
| the correct result if you have the Dynamic core selected,
| even on 64-bit MSVC builds. It's just 64-bit MSVC builds with
| any core other than the Dynamic core that give the wrong
| result.
|
| So what's going on here?
|
| MSVC 64-bit doesn't support 80-bit floating point math, and
| doesn't allow you to use inline assembly to manually run the
| 80-bit floating point instructions. Instead, floating point
| operations are truncated down to 64-bit.
|
| I think that the MSVC 64-bit build should NOT be the default
| build recommended to users for just that reason.
| nxobject wrote:
| In case you ever want to run Windows XP at 1MHz, of course. [1]
|
| (/s, of course, but you get the idea - more control.)
|
| [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FxHyofXglI&pp=ygUQd2luZG93c...
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Nothing. Author wanted to push the limits of unsupported stuff
| on a ongoing project. Myself I prefer vmware instead of
| virtualbox and/or qemu. When it comes to virtualization and
| fast spinning whatever flavor of the month a new OS pops vmware
| is undisputed king.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| This is objectively incorrect: vmware/qemu and dosbox are
| _not_ interchangeable technologies even if it seems like they
| try to do the same thing, with various comments on this post
| nicely explaining why and how =)
| giobox wrote:
| One of the primary reasons for using DosBox vs virtualization,
| at least for actual DOS software, is that lots of old DOS games
| and apps are designed to run on a specific x86 chip and clock
| speed.
|
| The classic example is the earlier Wing Commander games - run
| them on anything faster than the period correct 286/386 CPUs
| that were out at the time of release, the games timing/speed
| gets severely messed up. DosBox has nice features to let you
| control the CPU speed to try and make these games work again.
|
| Software such as Wing Commander were never tested/designed
| originally to run on faster CPUs that didn't exist back then
| and software timing can sometimes only be correct on very
| specific chips and clockspeeds.
|
| Here with XP, its just cool - not a practical or performant
| choice.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Modern Vintage Gamer recently went over Wing Commander and
| talked about this in detail. The problem with DosBox is the
| framerate chugs with lots of enemies on screen and then
| speeds up as you take them out one by one. He suggests the
| best way to play is on a PC that it was originally designed
| for.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuFNFd8I0WU&t=680s
|
| BTW, I remember playing Wing Commander way back in the day.
| No game sucked me in like that before or since.
| sebazzz wrote:
| DOSBOX-X and x86box emulate 3d graphics accelerators properly,
| and the native drivers in Windows support these. That means you
| can run games that require 3D acceleration. VirtualBox, VMWare
| often do not support 3d acceleration for older OS - not sure
| about qemu though.
| Vampiero wrote:
| This article is not very clear. After the author realizes that
| they don't have low-level access privileges they just... do the
| thing that failed 20 times before and suddenly it works with no
| explanation as to why.
| Dilettante_ wrote:
| The authentic Windows XP experience!
| unnouinceput wrote:
| No, he was not realizing that. Was wondering if that's the
| case. The realization comes later with understanding NT vs FAT
| conversion that was happening. Hence why the upgrade route via
| W2000
| smaudet wrote:
| I think clean installation failed, there is/was another
| installation route with upgrade.
|
| I agree that the low-level explanation is lacking, but in
| fairness dosbox-x doesn't sound like it offers that (out of the
| box).
|
| I'm guessing what happened, the boot sector etc. were installed
| by 98, win2k had some way of converting from FAT32 to NTFS, and
| the winxp installer just sets some flags and dumps install
| files on disk somewhere.
|
| Getting all that from "it's the NT conversion" is a stretch,
| but.
| felsqualle wrote:
| That's my current theory as well. IMHO that's the reason why
| an upgrade from 98 to XP failed while it ran successfully by
| using Windows 2000 as the base installation.
|
| Note that I was totally skipping the text-based installation
| stage when upgrading from Windows 2000 while I got it when
| starting the installation from Windows 98 - that's where the
| "NT conversion, stupid!"-theory came from.
| jaredhallen wrote:
| The way I read it is that instead of trying to upgrade directly
| from 98 to XP, they went from 98 to 2000, and then to XP.
| layer8 wrote:
| They tried upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP, hoping that
| it would work like upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows 2000
| did, but it didn't. Then they realized that upgrading from
| Windows 98 to Windows 2000 and _then_ to Windows XP might work,
| and it did.
|
| It's important to realize that Windows XP was the successor
| both to the NT line (Windows NT/2000) as well as to the DOS-
| based consumer-oriented line (Windows 95/98/ME), hence
| upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP is the natural path,
| whereas upgrading to Windows 2000 in between is kind of a
| detour.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yeah, I was really hoping to see a deep-dive with debugging and
| tracing tools to figure out _why_ those files failed to copy.
| But still fun to see the end result, with XP running.
| sourcepluck wrote:
| > The OOBE started, but what an experience it was! This wasn't an
| experience. This was pure madness!
|
| Very enjoyable. I was overjoyed seeing shots of 3D pinball.
| sourcepluck wrote:
| Following on from this, I looked at another of your articles,
| and learned of the existence of Andrey Muzychenko, and his
| reverse engineering efforts and making this
| https://github.com/k4zmu2a/SpaceCadetPinball
|
| Crazy! Playing right now, so happy. Reverse engineering and the
| people who practice it are legends.
| 01jonny01 wrote:
| I still use Windows XP, even managed to install the last ever
| version of Netscape. It was working with most mainstream site up
| until a few years ago.
| anyfoo wrote:
| As much as I love my retro-computing, I keep it far away from
| open networks...
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| It makes me feel so old to hear Windows XP described as
| "retro-computing". >smile<
| anyfoo wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember the release of Windows 3.0!
| (Before that I used Windows 2.1 and was technically around
| for all Windows releases, but didn't hear about the
| release.)
|
| But just last month, when I installed Windows 2000 on a
| new-old-stock laptop from 2008 (which was surprisingly
| challenging as well), I realized that it does start to feel
| retro by now...
| kelnos wrote:
| I remember the Win3.0 release too, though that was the
| first version of Windows I'd used (we were a DOS-only
| house before then). In middle school I begged my dad to
| get hold of a copy of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups,
| because somehow I believed that was crucial to my and a
| few friends plans to start our own software company.
|
| Of course those plans never materialized, even after we
| all installed WfW 3.11.
|
| It is wild to me that Windows 3.1's system requirements
| were 1MB of RAM and 6.5MB of disk space. Things have
| changed...
| anyfoo wrote:
| Ah, I remember installing WfW 3.11 around the same age as
| well! I don't even remember if we already had a home
| network at that time (the first one was NetWare 3.11
| based), but I do remember the subtle differences that
| somehow made it fun.
| kjs3 wrote:
| This. I still have a few XP machines/instances running
| software/hardware that won't work on newer stuff (logic
| analyzer, PROM/PAL programmers, old CAD, etc). I don't think
| I've ever launched a browser on them, and they definitely are
| walled off network wise. But they work perfectly for the use
| case.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Yep. For the same reason my oscilloscope and spectrum
| analyzer are in the same isolated network as my retro
| stuff.
| kjs3 wrote:
| My 'big' LA runs HP/UX 10.something. No way that's
| getting near the interwebs. =)
| ruined wrote:
| at some point, the attack surface is old and strange enough
| that it's no longer hazardous to expose. like a spear going
| through kevlar ballistic armor. i guess that's backwards but
| you know what i mean
| anyfoo wrote:
| Oh yeah, I agree with your point. I really wouldn't be
| worried very much about the DOS machine with packet drivers
| being exposed to the Internet. It's easier for me to have
| the "retro net" just being generally isolated, though.
|
| Windows XP on the other hand...
| wongarsu wrote:
| Windows XP meanwhile is more like a WWII weapon: outdated
| but still sees a surprising amount of use, and is familiar
| due to its similarity with modern weapons.
|
| Behind a NAT it may be fine, but you still have to be very
| careful
| biofox wrote:
| Maybe I'm just getting old, but Windows XP was the last version
| of Windows where usability and UI consistency seemed to be
| central to the design.
|
| The menu bar was in the same place in every application. Short-
| cuts were consistent between apps. I didn't have to contend with
| four different version of the file browser to open a file, or
| "Show more options" on right-click to get a non-idiot-proof
| context menu. Icons were high contrast, there were text
| descriptions and tools tips (instead of cryptic grey-on-grey
| icons), short-cut combinations were actually included in the
| menus, and almost every application had a help file!
|
| Can we go back to that, please?
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > The menu bar was in the same place in every application.
| Short-cuts were consistent between apps.
|
| Thank the "web-devs"... instead of having native looking apps
| that use OS controls/widgets they want to push dumb html/css/js
| to "unlease their creativity"... I'm sorry but huge middle
| finger to you.
|
| I want all my apps to use the same widgets and paradigme and
| look the same...
| DCH3416 wrote:
| Yeah but look how _cool_ those css effects look. What, people
| actually use keyboards to navigate?
| vundercind wrote:
| I try not to think about the collective time and frustration
| lost to companies wanting their native apps to be "on brand"
| and cross-platform consistent rather than native. A bunch of
| extra work to make it that way. A bunch of extra work to
| maintain it, any place dumb "look and feel" shit like
| specially-animated buttons or whatever made it fragile. Then
| on the other side, 99% of the time it's worse to use than if
| they'd at least _mostly_ stuck with native widgets, so wastes
| time and causes frustration among users, and then there 's
| the special case of that for accessibility, which is often a
| true shit-show.
|
| All because the marketing suite can't stand not getting their
| fingers in something. I want to see the fucking study that
| says having the buttons on iOS the same shape as the ones on
| the website adds any number of dollars to the bottom line.
| C'mon, this is important enough to spend a bunch of money on,
| slow development, and also make UX worse, must have a good
| reason for it, right? _Surely_ it 's not just an exec who's
| never done the actual job pushing things for vanity purposes,
| or a variety of roles padding their portfolios, or needing to
| market this to toddler-like C-suiters inside the company on
| some damn powerpoint, right? LOL.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's all such a waste of human life time, an actual
| tragedy.
| vundercind wrote:
| I connect this in my head to a shift in presentation of
| things like big box stores, which look a lot more
| consistent and marketing-designed these days than they
| did in, say, the '90s. Hell, fast food chains, too. It's
| like some time in the '00s marketing departments across
| the board received a much greater mandate and I've got
| this _funny feeling_ that only some of that, and maybe
| not most of it, is really justified by added value in
| dollar terms.
|
| But then, for as much as we pretend to be data-driven in
| business and pay lip service to various science-adjacent
| notions and think we've really got it all figured out,
| mooooost of it falls apart if you poke at it a little and
| it all starts to look very fad and social-proof driven.
| So I guess just add this to the list of weird stuff
| companies do for maybe-bad reasons.
| theideaofcoffee wrote:
| I feel the same way, I feel despair when I think about
| all of the time wasted for such trivial bullshit. But
| then I'm told I'm being dramatic and to get back to my
| Jira stories. Line must go up, huh?
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| While I do think native controls are the better choice, I
| disagree that companies even though it's harder. They do it
| mostly because it's easier: write once in JS, push to web,
| mobile and electron on desktop and be done with it.
| exe34 wrote:
| > I'm sorry but huge middle finger to you.
|
| Amen.
| dmit wrote:
| Exactly! Let's go back to the times when things were
| consistent! Remember when you couldn't tell AIM from ICQ from
| MSN Messenger from Skype because they looked and behaved
| consistently?
|
| Just find an old Windows VM and put Winamp next to Sonique
| next to RealPlayer next to Windows Media Player next to
| QuickTime -- those sure were the days, until the damn
| "creatives" came with their stupid "web tech."
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| I think they were referring to internal consistency?
|
| Windows XP did allow apps to do some crazy things, though
| not sure how much of that was unique to XP vs legacy APIs.
| Dwedit wrote:
| "Layered Windows" is how an application can have a window
| which is not the typical rectangular shape, such as the
| "Head" skin for Windows Media Player. That would be the
| "crazy things" that apps were allowed to do.
| myself248 wrote:
| Exactly! We spent years training reflexes and keyboard
| shortcuts, only to have window borders change appearance (and
| get thinner!), menus rearrange, controls vanish unless
| moused-over, etc. It's an insult.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I doubt we'll see as tight consistency again but the cause and
| effect more being Windows XP released 6 years after the taskbar
| debuted in Windows whereas now there is closer to 30 years of
| stuff expecting to still run the same as it did back then
| rather than a change of goals. I still wouldn't mind if it were
| a bit better on the consistency anyways though...
| fourfour3 wrote:
| Honestly, Windows 2000 UI with the right click menu on the
| start button from Windows 10 onwards would be a near perfect
| Windows UI for me!
|
| I know the 3D effects are considered dated now, but I found
| them very useful from a separation PoV.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Windows 2000 was this for me, but it's true that you could opt
| out of the bubble gum skin and get a more conventional look
| from XP if you preferred that.
| layer8 wrote:
| This was still largely true with Windows 7. Starting with
| Windows 8 the UI story really went to hell.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Okay, that's good to know. I was a Mac user from 2007 to
| 2018, so I missed the entirety of the Windows 7/8
| generation-- going directly from XP to 10.
| layer8 wrote:
| 10 was a bit of an improvement over 8, so at least you
| skipped the worst with 8. I haven't had the heart to
| install 11 yet though.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Like most filthy casuals, I don't think I'm a
| particularly "deep" user of the OS. It's basically
| background chrome for web browsers and terminal windows
| into WSL and SSH sessions.
|
| To the extent that the OS does anything at all, I'm
| usually just mildly annoyed, like it signing be out of my
| work VPN or forgetting how my monitors are arranged. Or
| eating the battery when it should be sleeping (though I
| understand there's been some historical finger-pointing
| between Dell and Microsoft about whose actual fault those
| issues are).
| DCH3416 wrote:
| > Icons were high contrast
|
| Seriously. Who demonized having legible color icons in exchange
| for blurry grayscale icons?
| layer8 wrote:
| Ironically, having to support high-DPI displays destroyed
| having nice icons.
| anyfoo wrote:
| I think that's true. I recently installed Windows 2000,
| also for nostalgia, and marveled at the icons. I like the
| Windows 3.11 (not so much the 3.0) icons even more.
|
| They have such a charm and special style that only works
| through their low pixel count, but if you would pixelate
| icons today it would just look gimmicky and out of place
| with the rest of the OS.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| It depends on the design of the icon. You generally can't
| scale Windows 3.1 graphics to higher resolutions without
| it looking like it's lacking details. The charm was with
| what you couldn't see and your mind could fill in the
| blanks.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Yep, that's what I mean. Art comes from restriction, and
| the designers at Microsoft did really charming stuff with
| what they had to work with.
|
| I still vividly remember such simple but delightful
| things as the Excel icon, or the icon of a stylized 386
| processor for the System category in Control Panel.
| Lammy wrote:
| > the designers at Microsoft
|
| Susan Kare did a lot of those! I love how they're just as
| expressive at 16-colors as at higher color depths.
| https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-
| comput...
| anyfoo wrote:
| Ah, thanks for telling me that. I had absolutely no idea
| she had any involvement, but now it makes perfect sense.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| That's true. Right up until you look at Haiku and its
| vector icons. But I get it. Everyone has to look the same.
| Dwedit wrote:
| Vector graphics are a thing, you can make colorful graphics
| that can scale. You just might need multiple levels of
| detail depending on how large it's rendered at.
| tetris11 wrote:
| This may be the nostalgia factor, but XP was genuinely one of
| the best operating systems I've ever run.
|
| I had the "Student Edition" and you could trim down all the
| services to the point that you would have a running OS using
| just 18 processes. Linux at the time could not compete with
| that. (Of course, things have changed a lot since then).
| exe34 wrote:
| When was this? I used VectorLinux on a 600MHz celeron with
| 64MB RAM for a year at uni, and I could tell you what every
| process was doing there - everything else had to go.
| written-beyond wrote:
| Blog post please
| exe34 wrote:
| I don't really blog, and I've forgotten all the juicy
| details at this point. It was an old thinkpad that just
| barely booted up windows ME and then couldn't do anything
| useful. VectorLinux was a really great match for it, I
| think they claimed to have fiddled with the kde libraries
| at the source level and ripped out a bunch of things to
| make it all snappier - I don't know to what extent that's
| true, but that crappy little laptop allowed me to run
| firefox, openoffice, skype, matlab and latex (not all at
| the same time - at most two) for my first year of uni.
| written-beyond wrote:
| Hearing about these esoteric Linux distros and their lore
| is always interesting.
|
| I'm surprised Skype used to be functional, post Microsoft
| acquisition I remember constantly fiddling with it to run
| consistently on fairly recent versions of Ubuntu on a 4th
| gen i5 latitude.
| exe34 wrote:
| oh it was a pain in the gluteus maximus, this was before
| alsa worked properly, so it was using oss, and you could
| only have one application using the sound card. this
| means a random flash applet at the bottom of a page on
| Firefox could easily hold it and Skype would just not
| work.
| tetris11 wrote:
| Well, okay, puppylinux was pretty good if I recall in that
| respect. This was ~15ish years ago, and I think that debian
| and slackware were bloated in comparison to XP back then
| exe34 wrote:
| Yeah VL was based off slack but they ripped a bunch of
| things out, and I carefully went over the bootscripts and
| removed a bit more of things I didn't definitely need.
| kimixa wrote:
| Measuring total process count seems like a bit of a nonsense
| metric, it seems more related to how the services are
| structured or what features you want enabled rather than any
| measure of "goodness".
|
| From a security and robustness POV, surely /more/ process
| separation is a good thing?
| tetris11 wrote:
| Of course, and I recall there being a single windows
| process that pretty much did everything -- but at the same
| time I knew that there were no other processes acting in
| the background other than the ones I actively used, and
| Windows.
| anyfoo wrote:
| So the point is just "shorter list is easier to look
| through, and remember which processes are supposed to be
| there"?
|
| In Linux it was usually pretty obvious what daemon did
| what on a somewhat well curated system, though. No
| svchost.exe, and no gargantuan system processes or a
| kernel overstepping its boundaries.
|
| Of course, that's very different nowadays...
| tetris11 wrote:
| Back then I was not so savvy with what every process did
| (over the years, of course, one learns). Windows XP had
| one main process, and everything else was practically
| userspace apps
| anyfoo wrote:
| Yeah, that makes sense. I think the (slight) backlash you
| get is from your original statement that that is what
| makes it the "best OS", when in reality it arguably
| rather indicates some problems.
| kimixa wrote:
| From what I remember a single svchost.exe process
| instance could be handing multiple "services" - you could
| see the mapping of service to PID in the Services, and
| there wasn't a 1:1 relationship.
|
| So did you _actually_ know what services were running
| based on the processes to support the belief that "there
| were no other processes acting in the background"?
| tetris11 wrote:
| But they were signed windows services, I didn't have to
| worry about any nefarious processes coming from the OS
| itself (at least, not back then...)
| anyfoo wrote:
| Well, some of these processes did _a lot_ , didn't they?
| Sadly, Windows also does or did a lot in the kernel that
| should actually happen as a process in userspace.
| biddendidden wrote:
| > Windows XP was the last version of Windows where usability
| and UI consistency seemed to be central to the design.
|
| Ever used Win 7? Way better, and not a candy UI.
| evoke4908 wrote:
| Aero is like the _definition_ of candy
| layer8 wrote:
| Not of candy (like XP), but of eye candy maybe.
| fourteenfour wrote:
| What? I really like Win 7 but it is for sure one of the best
| early examples of a "candy" ui. The close button looks like a
| jolly rancher and everything is glassy looking. If you are
| talking about "eye-candy" it also stretches far into that
| territory with title bar blurs, drop shadows and transparency
| effects across the OS.
| josephscott wrote:
| This, especially if you turned off the extra UI bits, under
| performance options.
| theamk wrote:
| Sure, just get any of the lightweight linuxes. Classical
| toolbar, good contrast, captions... Some apps do have
| inconsistent shortcuts, but many don't.
|
| I type this comment from old Ubuntu Mate system, but my next
| system is going to be Debian-based.
| mipsi wrote:
| My inner voice of Nostalgia just whispered: All the gorgeous
| pixels gone with the wind.
| throwawee wrote:
| You're looking at it through rose tinted lenses. I remember it
| getting blasted for its Fisher Price theme and ugly new Start
| Menu and Control Panel redesigns. Remember the search dog?
|
| If Microsoft had a champion of UI consistency I think it'd be
| Windows 2000, but I wouldn't know from experience. I was given
| a Windows ME prebuilt.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| For me, Windows 2000 and Classic MacOS were high water mark of
| UI design.
|
| After that, change for the sake of change started ti creep in
| and then accelerated.
|
| Windows XP had the Luna UI with its Fisher Price color scheme
| and OSX moved to the lickabke Aqua UI.
| felsqualle wrote:
| Hi folks, thank you so much for your comments!
|
| Yes, this was purely a "why not?!" project, it doesn't really
| make sense and using VMware or true low-level emulation like
| 86Box is a way better option than using completely unsupported
| software.
|
| Currently going through your comments...
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Question: Why didn't you just slap a No-CD patch on The Sims to
| see if it could run?
|
| The game is almost 25 years old (ow, my bones) I don't think
| anyone would bat an eye if you circumvented the DRM
| binary132 wrote:
| Fun article. A bit of mental time-travel back to early teen years
| and struggling to learn native windows game programming. :)
| taneq wrote:
| We've achieved inner-platform-ception. Again. It's recursive.
| tomw1808 wrote:
| There are people who create checksums of iso's and there's people
| like me.
|
| And then there are people who do not read the ToS and then
| there's also nobody else.
|
| I miss the simplicity of windows xp. sometimes.
| ale42 wrote:
| If I remember correctly, the blue text-mode part of the setup can
| be launched from DOS 7.1 (the DOS part of Windows 98, with FAT32
| support) by copying the i386 directory from the CD to the
| FAT32-formatted hard drive and running WINNT.EXE from MS-DOS. I
| doubt this would work inside DOSBox-X, tough... I'd like to try
| but right now I don't have enough time for such experiments ;-)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-31 23:00 UTC)