Win3.x for example has some nasty checks to kick out DRDOS and others
to monopolize use of msdos for windows. That's why it was hard to get the
dosbox-internal dos compatible with win3.x

In general, heading for game compatibility will of course be advantageous
for games as well, but nobody will care for specific program problems.

While it is true that programming for game compatibility will mean that overall DOS programs will be more compatible, there are alot of specific cases where this will not be true and in some cases may never (or may be a long time) happen at all.

So for those wanting DosBox to be more than a game emulator...no they can not "relax". They should continue pushing for DosBox to support programs....which in some ways I hope never happens because I like the fact that DosBox is JUST for running games.

DosFreak wrote:

While it is true that programming for game compatibility will mean that overall DOS programs will be more compatible, there are alot of specific cases where this will not be true and in some cases may never (or may be a long time) happen at all.

So for those wanting DosBox to be more than a game emulator...no they can not "relax". They should continue pushing for DosBox to support programs....which in some ways I hope never happens because I like the fact that DosBox is JUST for running games.

What fact? I use it to run WordStar. It is great for that.

If *I* wanted a limited tool, *I* would not pick a computer system to start with. Try a rock instead.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

> What fact?

THE fact.

wd wrote:

Win3.x for example has some nasty checks to kick out DRDOS and others
to monopolize use of msdos for windows. That's why it was hard to get the
dosbox-internal dos compatible with win3.x

I've heard of those checks, but they weren't actually enabled in any final retail builds of Win 3.x, were they?

Most are there, like checks against positions of dos tables.

Yes, the checks are there, but they aren't actually used, are they?
http://www.ddj.com/184409070

By they are there i meant they are done.

Most checks are in there (AND done) in the release versions,
but they had to tell the drdos people what the checks are.
The aard-papers you mentioned give nice hints, but are
quite incomplete.

I don't know how valid this is but there has been mention of other "compatibility issues" beyond aard.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/ … 7/schulman.html
(Under the segment "Litigating Code")
To quote from the article-
"Some of our findings are reflected in Caldera's response on intentional and perceived incompatibilities. Besides the AARD code, we researched:

* a fascinating (and serious) incompatibility between Windows 3.1 SETUP and DR DOS that had to do with a failure to clear a single bit: the processor's "Nested Task" flag;
* an incompatibility based on Windows 3.1 SETUP's gratuitous requirement that an XMS server report an internal revision number of 2.6 or higher;
* an explicit test for (and refusal to run on) DR DOS in early betas of SmartDrive version 4 ("Bambi");
* gratuitous tests for Korean MS-DOS, performed by Korean versions of Windows;"

As far as i remember, microsoft explained that they kicked
out drdos in many ways because it was (at that time) too
buggy and incompatible to run win3x. Supposedly this was
more or less a decision to support selling of msdos, not
much more. Yet those relicts are hard to come by, as seen
in the freedos project.