Thank you very much! ^^
I'll have try that out in a virtual machine on weekend!

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:43:

You don't have to, but I think it has certain character traits of it. It also was used as a post office (LAN mail server) in sma […]
Show full quote

Disruptor wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:20:

I won't call WfW a NOS.
A classic NOS is Novell Netware (full version).

You don't have to, but I think it has certain character traits of it.
It also was used as a post office (LAN mail server) in small and medium sized offices.

WfW was also a product of its own, somewhere between Windows 3.1 and NT 3.1.
Like a third kind of Windows, if we will. It wasn't just another Windows 3.1.
It had technology backported from Chicago (Win95), but was closer to NT 3.1 in terms of professionalism.

Windows 3.1 and 95 were consumer versions of Windows, whereas WfW was semi-professional maybe.
That's why Windows NT CDs have copies of Windows for Workgroups included, but no Windows 95, I guess.

The attachment nt31fam.jpg is no longer available

About Netware. The classic Novell Netware also started from DOS and then switched to its own OS kernal.

If memory serves, it had two operation modes, actually.
In one, the Novell Netware ran exklusively and in the other one the server computer was still usable as DOS machine same time.

I'm just a layman here, though. 😅
There were different versions of Novell, I vaguely remember.
In the 80s, there was an 286 and 386 version, for example.

And in late 90s, there was the last DOS release that caused compatibility issues somehow?
I vaguely remember this, because of my copy of Novell DOS 7.
It supported two "generations" of Novell Netware (I don’t mean Netware Lite or Personal Netware).

Even though Netware was dying our collage teachers would use it as it did clearly define the difference between an OS and NOS.

Netware was a NOS in it's truest form. Novell Only wanted to worry about Networking side that is, sharing resources and managing permissions to those resources.
They were more then happy to leave disk, sound and any other hardware setup to someone else, be it DOS, Linux, Windows.
Probably a smart strategy in the beginning but as networking and the Internet became common it was only a matter of time before the OS itself would have to include this.

I understand what you mean though, Win3x is more then just a GUI shell for dos but I still wouldn't call it a stand alone product/OS.
I'd also consider say a system that has been formatted with MS Dos 7, but never had Win9x installed a true dos machine. Just has a few nice things like LFN or Fat32 support

I stopped having a 'pure dos' machine by 1996. (The XT was retired, the 486 ran win95)

Yes, I currently have a Socket 7 system which purely runs DOS. The first PC that I got back in 1996 had MS-DOS 6.22 installed (along with Win 3.11) which is why I'm very nostalgic for that era of gaming.

If you look at the System Specs subforum, you'll find that a lot of people there have dedicated DOS systems.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-26, 01:33:

Thank you very much! ^^ ...

As you can prob tell, this was setup for an NE2000 compatible NIC.
I forgot to include PROTOCOL.INI where the NIC setup is configured.

1[MS$NE2CLONE]
2DriverName=MS2000$
3INTERRUPT=11
4IOBASE=0x6C00
5
6[NE2000]
7Adapters=MS$NE2CLONE
8
9[MS$NDISHLP]
10DriverName=ndishlp$
11BINDINGS=MS$NE2CLONE

If you are using some other NIC, you'll have to replace NE2000.DOS with the appropriate driver
and change the config files - might be easiest to get it working in WFW then copy the
appropriate sections.

And do note ... this was from "vanilla" WFW ... only supports MS networking 1.0 - which is disabled
in newer windows (but can be enabled)

FWIW - this was a system running MS-DOS 5.0

BTW: It really has been "years" since I've used MS-NET in DOS ... but I did work fairly hard at minimizing
what I needed to copy to non-WFW systems, I *think* this is a fairly minimal setup.

Well my computers more of a hybrid (233MMX) given it has Windows 95 OSR2 on one drive and DOS 6.22 and win 3.1 on another drive.
But yeah i mean i do like DOS , yknow its nice to sometimes have a stripped down bare bones O/S where you can just focus on one task at a time and not have a cluttered desktop.

And its handy to have for compatibility reasons if you want to play 90s stuff.
Plus since DOS was only just before my time it has a mysterious ancient tome like quality to it ,
and its somewhat novel to me (maybe not to people who used it back in the day)
plus having to mess about with Autoexec.bat and Config.sys makes you feel like a hacker every time.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 18:17:

Windows for Workgroups
[...]
On top of that, it moves DOS into an VM that basically runs on top of WfW.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:18:

Windows 9x [...] It's a walking V86 Machine Monitor! The very heart of Windows 9x is the VMM, in fact! […]
Show full quote

Windows 9x
[...]
It's a walking V86 Machine Monitor! The very heart of Windows 9x is the VMM, in fact!

What it does after booting is moving DOS in a VM and then running DOS on top of itself.
Or side by side with itself, maybe. Depends on point of view.

So whenever a DOS driver or BIOS call is needed, it asks its buddy, the DOSVM to do it.

So, is there any difference between Windows 3.x 386 Enhanced Mode and Windows 9x ?

I'm *not* asking about the obvious stuff, like extended API, or support for newer hardware.
I'm asking about the architecture.

From what I already know, I can't see any difference...
Both 3.x and 9x are VMM-based.
Both move DOS - along with the earlier-loaded real-mode drivers and TSRs - into a VM, and that's how they can use the services provided by said drivers/TSRs.

So, once again:

Windows 9x = DOS + WfW + extended Win32s

Or am I missing something?

While MS-DOS hit the market in what, 1981'ish? I didn't get into x86 computing until several years later. I started on machines like the TI-99/4A (My first PC, 1981), Commodore VIC 20, and Tandy CoCo.

I actually didn't care for DOS when I first saw it. I looked at it as being for business machines. I don't recall what version I started on. It was like... 1987'ish, so probably MS-DOS 3? First DOS game I bought was Kings Quest I think.

By 1990 I was playing across 3 platforms. Consoles, PC, and Commodore. Well, and my old Tandy systems.

MS-DOS grew on me very quickly as more and more games were ported to it or developed for it, as hardware became more readily available, and its capabilities grew.

These days, I just like playing in it and reliving those old memories. 😀

AppleSauce wrote on Yesterday, 04:56:

... it has Windows 95 OSR2 on one drive and DOS 6.22 and win 3.1 on another drive. ...

At one point I was big into front-panel removable hard drive drive carriers.
ALL of my systems had them.

Not quite as much now, but still have them in a few. Makes it very easy to change OS.

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 05:35:

... Tandy CoCo ...

Ah.. memories ...

Although my first (non-HomeBuilt) was an Altair in the 70s (8080 CPU), I became much more fond of the
6809 CPU and had a bunch of system using that - incl: 3-4 CoCos.

Still have a few homebuilt 6809 systems (running my CUBIX os)

Grzyb wrote on Yesterday, 05:12:

So, once again:

Windows 9x = DOS + WfW + extended Win32s

Or am I missing something?

Basically right, yes. WfW 3.11 got some code made during Windows 95 development, so there's a connection on code level anyway.
Such as TCP/IP-32 or 32-Bit File Accesss, I think. It (Win95) even identified itself as Windows 3.95 to Windows 3.1x applications.

Windows 95 was a 16/32-Bit hybrid that used lots of thunking, it used Win32c API:
Win16 applications ran in co-operative multitasking, while Win32 (and DOS) applications ran via preemptive multitasking.

Usually, Win32c applications started at a fixed memory location (0x10000) that made them incompatible with Win32s.
On Windows 3.1x+Win32s the memory is shared between all Win16/Win32s applications and co-operative multitasking is used.

Strictly speaking, there are no separate Win32s/Win32c applications.
They are merely Win32 applications with some limitations/features.
Win32s applications use no threading, draw no Bézier curves (GDI) and have relocation tables, for example.

And Win32c applications added support for Windows 95 specific things.
The original Windows NT 3.1 era Win32 applications did contain relocation tables by default, too, however. Many can run on Win31+Win32s.

Beginning with Windows 95, though, both Win32s 1.30c and NT 3.5x did use Windows 95 as a role model rather than the old Windows NT 3.1.
Win32s 1.30c added severaldummy functions that did nothing except keeping more recent applications from crashing.

Windows NT 3.51 even got that "NewShell" update (optional) that made NT look like upcoming Windows NT 4.

The big difference between Win32s extension for Windows 3.1x and Win32c in Windows 95 was that Win32s was a compatibility layer.
It didn't add any new API functions but tried to map Win32 API calls issued from Windows applications down to the old Windows 3.1x API.
It basically was a Win16 <> Win32 converter.

"Basically" because it did a few more things, too. Text character handling, for example.
On Japanese Windows 3.1, the Japanese Win32s is required, too.
Otherwise, if using English version, Japanese Win32 applications turn out looking gibberish.

Windows 95 also differed in graphics drivers.
It was fully backwards compatible to Windows 3.1 drivers, but also supported "mini" drivers:
The new Windows 95 graphics drivers nolonger contain big parts of GDI, but use the GDI that's part of Windows 95.
The graphics drivers merely contain the hardware dependend part.

PS: The funny thing is that Win16 applications could make use of new features if they ran on Windows 95.
That's because Windows 95 was a 16/32-Bit hybrid.
So there are basically Windows 95 applications that are 16-Bit applications (NE header, Win16) and won’t run on Windows 3.1x or NT.
Likewise, some Win32 applications written for Win32s environment of Windows 3.1x won’t run on any other Windows (9x, NT) because they rely on 16-Bit DLLs or similar stuff.

DaveDDS wrote on Yesterday, 11:10:

Ah.. memories ... […]
Show full quote

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 05:35:

... Tandy CoCo ...

Ah.. memories ...

Although my first (non-HomeBuilt) was an Altair in the 70s (8080 CPU), I became much more fond of the
6809 CPU and had a bunch of system using that - incl: 3-4 CoCos.

Still have a few homebuilt 6809 systems (running my CUBIX os)

Very cool! Sadly, I missed out on systems like the Altair and OS's like CP/M since I was born in the early 70's and didn't get my first computer until 1981.

As I got older, I always wanted an Altiar to play with, but they were hard to find and eventually got far too expensive to consider just so I could "play" with it.

A few years back, I found a modern way to scratch that itch. It was inspired by Adrian's Digital Basement working on his SWTPC 6800 that rekindled the idea. I ran across, and then built myself, a Z80-MBC2 powered system.

Homebrew.
Fully DIY.
CP/M.
Inexpensive.

I loved it. In fact, building it was one of the driving forces behind doing my silly little "Classic Geek" blog and to buy my first 3D printer so I could do a full custom setup. My custom Z80-MBC2 is one of my all-time favorite builds. It was as close as I was going to get to that era of computing.

I had considered an RC2014 build as well. It's deign is a little more true to machines like the Altair and SWTPC, but it was also much more expensive. Maybe one day I will build one of those too.

https://theclassicgeek.blogspot.com/2022/09/t … w-computer.html (It's in 4 parts: Z80-MBC2>UTerm>Final Assembly>Capabilities)

Grzyb wrote on Yesterday, 05:12:

So, once again:

Windows 9x = DOS + WfW + extended Win32s

Or am I missing something?

Pretty much. If you don't have it, Unauthorized Windows 95 is an entire book dedicated to this topic.

I think the waters were somewhat muddied back then because people were emotionally invested in Windows 95 being something other than that. For example, if you are pro-Microsoft, as a few Win95 reviewers the book quotes, it makes it sound like Windows 95 is something like NetWare or Loadlin into Linux, in which a small DOS environment is used to initialize hardware via config.sys/autoexec.bat before permanently jumping into a distinct protected-mode OS:

There is a book review over at https://www.os2museum.com/wp/book-review-unau … zed-windows-95/

At the other extreme, those who were anti-Microsoft, such as OS/2 or Linux users, I suppose, dismissed Windows 95 as a program running on DOS.

I suspect that the anti-trust suits and the situation of DR-DOS motivated how some thought of the relationship between Windows 95 and MS-DOS as well.

I wasn't old enough to be watching the Windows 95 argument over this in real-time, but I definitely remember the Windows Me one, in that except when running from a boot disk, removing support for external config.sys and autoexec.bat files was somehow cast as removing DOS or making it not based on DOS.

We have the benefit of hindsight and the leaked technical details about things like GEMMIS (Global EMM Import Specification), which helps explain how Win95 can take over for himem.sys and emm386.exe during boot--that is, one DOS extender takes over from another--only to undo that and return control to them if you "restart in MS-DOS mode."

I wish I had a pure DOS machine, say a 486 DX or even lower, to be more period and speed accurate. But I have "too much gear" issue from collecting other stuff like consoles and micros, also they are getting a bit pricey, so will have to stick with my PIII box which is Win 98 based and covers all bases.

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 16:56:

Very cool! Sadly, I missed out on systems like the Altair and OS's like CP/M since I was born in the early 70's and didn't get my first computer until 1981.
... As I got older, I always wanted an Altiar to play with ...

If you'd like to experience running/using real systems "from the day", check
out these simulators I wrote at one point to exactly emulate the actual systems
I used the most prior to the IBM-PC.

These run under DOS (work well in DosBox), and emulate as close as I could get
to my systems.

1ALTAIR  Mits Altair 8800 (8080, NorthStarDOS)
2D6809   One of my home designs(6809, CUBIX)
3H8      Heathkit H8 (8080, HDOS)
4HORIZON NorthStar Horison&Vector Graphics VECTOR1+ (Z80, NorthStarDOS, CP/M)
5MOD8    MIL MOD-8(8008, Monitor-8, SCELBI BASIC)

Systems with front panels, show working panels, The "glass teletype" terminals
I used with them are emullated on PC keyboard/screen (can switch to<>from front
panel display, terminal, debugger etc). Most of them can also redirect the
console to an actual PC serial port. Serial ports work (redirected to PC ones)
so you can "talk" to them.

The implement RAM, Disk Controllers and other I/O cards, boot the actual
O.S. disks I used with them, and include disk images for many of the other
tools/laanguages/games I had.

jakethompson1 wrote on Today, 00:13:

Pretty much. If you don't have it, Unauthorized Windows 95 is an entire book dedicated to this topic.

Thanks - I haven't seen that book before, but now it looks like the ultimate answer to all my questions...

I think the waters were somewhat muddied back then because people were emotionally invested in Windows 95 being something other than that.

First and foremost, it was muddied because Microsoft's marketing department did their best to pretend that Windows 95 was something revolutionary, and not just DOS + Windows 3 with updates, all bundled together and repainted to new colors.

For example, if you are pro-Microsoft, as a few Win95 reviewers the book quotes, it makes it sound like Windows 95 is something like NetWare or Loadlin into Linux, in which a small DOS environment is used to initialize hardware via config.sys/autoexec.bat before permanently jumping into a distinct protected-mode OS:

I'm not sure about NetWare.
But I'm sure that Linux - even when booted via Loadlin - CAN'T use the services of DOS, DOS drivers, or DOS TSRs.

With Windows 9x, it's quite contrary - sometimes it makes use of real-mode stuff even without the user manually touching CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT.
For example, try installing an Arcnet card - Windows will detect it, and install its own drivers - but these drivers are NDIS2, for real-mode DOS.

At the other extreme, those who were anti-Microsoft, such as OS/2 or Linux users, I suppose, dismissed Windows 95 as a program running on DOS.
I suspect that the anti-trust suits and the situation of DR-DOS motivated how some thought of the relationship between Windows 95 and MS-DOS as well.

The relationship between Windows 9x and DOS seems to be identical to that of Windows 3.x 386 Enhanced Mode and DOS.

I wasn't old enough to be watching the Windows 95 argument over this in real-time, but I definitely remember the Windows Me one, in that except when running from a boot disk, removing support for external config.sys and autoexec.bat files was somehow cast as removing DOS or making it not based on DOS.

There's a simple patch to make Windows ME normally process CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Obviously, the processing being disabled is totally artificial - all the related architecture is still in place, just like in 3.x/9x.

We have the benefit of hindsight and the leaked technical details about things like GEMMIS (Global EMM Import Specification), which helps explain how Win95 can take over for himem.sys and emm386.exe during boot--that is, one DOS extender takes over from another--only to undo that and return control to them if you "restart in MS-DOS mode."

Again, nothing Win95-specific here - GEMMIS was already there for Windows 3.x, maybe even Windows/386 2.x ?
Note that Windows 3.x can't run in 386 Enhanced Mode under FreeDOS - exactly because of the lack of GEMMIS support.

Grzyb wrote on Today, 13:24:

But I'm sure that Linux - even when booted via Loadlin - CAN'T use the services of DOS, DOS drivers, or DOS TSRs.

With Windows 9x, it's quite contrary - sometimes it makes use of real-mode stuff even without the user manually touching CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT.
For example, try installing an Arcnet card - Windows will detect it, and install its own drivers - but these drivers are NDIS2, for real-mode DOS.

Agreed. The Loadlin situation seems like what those reviewers wanted to believe or imagined when overly reading into descriptions of Windows 95's use of DOS.
That is the kind of example the author uses to prove it can't possibly be true--another one is that even 32-bit processes still get a DOS Program Segment Prefix.

Grzyb wrote on Today, 13:24:

We have the benefit of hindsight and the leaked technical details about things like GEMMIS (Global EMM Import Specification), which helps explain how Win95 can take over for himem.sys and emm386.exe during boot--that is, one DOS extender takes over from another--only to undo that and return control to them if you "restart in MS-DOS mode."

Again, nothing Win95-specific here - GEMMIS was already there for Windows 3.x, maybe even Windows/386 2.x ?
Note that Windows 3.x can't run in 386 Enhanced Mode under FreeDOS - exactly because of the lack of GEMMIS support.

Now that 386MAX is open source, it might be possible to use it on FreeDOS with enhanced mode. I haven't dug into it.
Another issue, to your overall point even more, is that even before Win95, Windows and DOS weren't really separate products. 386 enhanced mode made "INT 2F broadcasts" that DOS device drivers and TSRs (including some shipped with DOS) could hook. They could either adapt themselves to Windows loading or exiting, or do even more things like inject a VxD--stashed inside a COM or DOS EXE file at some offset--into the Windows boot process. That's all described in a different section of the book, a trivial example being the WINA20.386 that DOS injects into Windows 3.0 and possibly earlier. It isn't Windows 3.0, but DOS, that causes it to load.

I install at least Windows 3.1(1) on every DOS machine of mine if it has at least around 100MB of storage. I just like the convenience it adds. But my oldest PC is a 386. If I had anything older, I probably wouldn't 'waste' space on Windows.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-09-25, 09:53:

I don't see a good reason to use pure DOS. It's easier to edit stuff in Win9x environment and just load in DOS mode afterwards. But I don't usually use anything below Pentium.

There are reasons to use pure DOS - DOS doesn't "get in the way" nearly
as much as more sophisticated "modern" O.S.s - There is no memory or
(more importantly) I/O protection. It is also trivial to set up a system
where nothing else "runs in background".

That's why ImageDisk runs under (and requires DOS) IMD can read and restore
ANY floppy disk format the the PCs Nec765 FDC is capable of reading/writing.

This means it doesn't use BIOS, and access the FDC directly and sometimes in
somewhat non-standard and "unusual" ways. Rather than spend months/years trying
to figure out dozens of "special drivers" and "permissions" and build a
typical modern application onfmegs that "mostly" works (sometimes - depending
on that else has been configured or happening on the system) ...

IMD.COM is a single 35k executable with no external libraries etc. required,
and always does to the limit what that particular systems hardware is capable
of doing (with floppy disks).

--

Other software (mostly games - but some others) need real time performance that
can only be guaranteed in DOS - and I've got some DOS only things (DDLINK, ICE,
ROM emulators, hardware debuggers etc.) that do I/O through parallel ports.

Look at doing the simplest/lowest-level type of network access - "raw" packets.
Trivial in DOS (sinple "packet driver" TSR) - Winblows blocks use of the NIC
enough that you need some sort of PCAP driver/tool!

--

Re: Easier to edit - I write my own text editor back on about 1982, and have
since ported it to virtually every O.S. I used - Same editor in DOS/Win16.
Win32, Linux, Cubix and a few others ... very nicr to not have to work around
what type of system you afe using... And it does everything I want an editor
to do (and if I thing of something else I want - I just add it!)

--