Maybe you need to clarify your goal...

Why?

Windows 3.1 runs under DOS. So why do you need another DOS?

Dominus wrote:

Maybe you need to clarify your goal...

Look for his other threads. The guy basically wants to get every piece of code ever written to run under Windows 3.1. Including, probably, Windows 3.1. 🤣

Why do you want to do that? It is pointless. DOSBox is a DOS emulator. And Windows 3.1 runs on TOP of DOS!

It might be possible to do this with windows in 386 enhanced mode and Win32s installed. Windows 3.1 standard mode though, nope, don't really see that happening unless you want to rewrite it from scratch.

I struggle to understand why though. Very few systems able to run windows 3.1 properly will also be powerful enough to run DOSBox.

kids these days and their unrealistic warped perspectives on computer and software history........

Perhaps he means that -- the programs under the DOS window which can use the soundcards supported in a windows environment? The programs under win3.x DOS window cant use soundcard and (that window was left buggy even for win98se).

@95DOSBOX !!

Once upon a time I asked the developers to add the support for WIN98SE in that Renoise tracker package. They said NO. Later I discovered that many latest program compiler libraries deceased the support for WIN98SE. Since the compilation is not so straightforward, then it would be extra job to them to find the workarounds.
TYPICAL CASE:
Several programs were advertised as running under WIN98SE, but was faulty under that platform, but was working okay under WINXP. I asked the developer to compile it correctly for WIN98SE too. The same trouble - refusal - cant compile for this platform as the compiler newer versions were already deceasing that support for win98se.

Okay, but DOSbox is written entirely for 32bit windows environment.
Now imagine all of this with a request to support 16-bit windows environment (win3.x)!

Do you know what this means?
There is much more to change couple lines as the:
1. the compiler needs to support win3.x, but the applications programmed under these things which require "atleast latest M$ version".
AFAIK the last ones are back in the 90s which could do that.
2. the source code library must take into account the win3.x specifics. This one is up to programmers.
So, besides 64bit-windows-dosbox.exe
32bit-windows-dosbox.exe
linux-dosbox.rpm
there must be
16-bit-windows-dosbox.exe
as a result. 😀
So, based on these steps there are many things to change. But porting all this code to 16bit windows (okay, win32s, but it is still not 32bit) requires a total rewrite.

And then, still it is not ready: AC97 is not supported as soundcard, and the bugs which are still there and limitations in that WIN3.x.

3. the sound card must be supported under win3.x, before it can be for DOSbox. So it must have the driver. WHich is different task.
4. The command prompt in win3.x is quite buggy for a DOS applications as there is not good timeshare/timeslices and no way to do something if something tries to violate memory. WIthout that you need to be very picky about the programs and their combinations or system crashes. Even the win98se dos shell is buggy and can on occassion crash the entire machine on some programs combinations - it just is enough to run the Volkov commander and exit.

Do you know what this means?
It is HUGE job, as there is not such source yet, as most compiled things require "atleast latest M$ platform".

Compared to that to make just the soundblaster emulating driver for the AC97 chipset for DOS and run your thing directly on DOS then. Just making the AC97 sound driver for win3.x system is much simpler job compared to that all listed above,

The thing that win3.x can run on pentium4 is just becouse of the hardware backward compatibility, and it is somewhat good luck just becouse win3.x has no idea about the expanded hardware possibilities. Or are there AGP card drivers for win3.x to get more than 640x480 density?

the win3.x starts within 4 seconds, closes immediately. Better off this way. Running DOS applications in a WIN3.x window is STILL buggy (see reason above) as hell and very risky undertaking. Must be very picky for program choices and their combinations. AFAIK no way to prevent some programs to corrupt memory or entire system and in order to do this it requires some real rewriting.

Still... what for it is used? If it is for DOS games then they were supposed to run
on a native DOS and under win3.x DOS window it just calls for trouble.

I dont say that would be impossible, but it is just a huge undertaking.

When I made some piece of hardware then I made the program to run directly on the hardware under the DOS becouse for windows it would be too much extra job and then I would not get the stability which needed. Under windows it should require first drivers, then a program itself, but also it requires to debug all these troubles and limitations under the windows environment specifically.

Some serious music programs written for win3.x perhaps were there just becouse it provided some standardized soundcard interface but the rest of it was the programmer developed becouse they did not existed in a correct way in that win3.x for a multitrack recorder, especially timers and filecaching.

Now do you know what for is there the DOSbox for a windows XP, 7, 8, 9, ? why not to just run the DOS thing on a "command prompt" ?! 😉 😁

95DosBox wrote:

[/u][/b]
Just for clarification I am "NOT" trying to run Windows 3.1 under DOSBOX. I am hoping to use DOSBOX under Windows 3.1 natively.

Now to whom THIS clarification is necessary, on this forum here?

leileilol wrote:

kids these days and their unrealistic warped perspectives on computer and software history........

Thanks for the shade if that was directed towards me. Probably a bit too old to be labeled a "kid" but I already have a firm grasp on computer software and hardware having run a computer store when Apple ][s were popular during the golden age of computing when there wasn't just Apple or IBM. Perhaps you are satisfied with the status quo to see anything beyond NT based emulation as only being relevant.

Zup wrote:

Why?
Windows 3.1 runs under DOS. So why do you need another DOS?

To handle the different kinds of sound card emulation. Assuming a proper Windows 3.1 sound device works for the sound output. The best final output device outcome would be using the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio output. Since the HDMI video and audio is carried on the same cable hooking this up to a HDTV you're done.

olddos25 wrote:

Why do you want to do that? It is pointless. DOSBox is a DOS emulator. And Windows 3.1 runs on TOP of DOS!

For running sound emulation on modern systems where only PCIe slots are available. DOSBOX would take care of the sound emulation to be piped to a Windows 3.1 sound device. It's not about just using the command prompt. DOS itself already takes care of that if I wanted to fiddle with the command prompt only. DOSBOX is not just a DOS emulator but a sound card emulator as well. It would also correctly slow down certain DOS games that operated on much slower machines. Even if DOSBOX didn't do the sound card emulation it would still be useful for running a program that wouldn't normally run on a faster machine and just pass the internal PC speaker sounds only for pre sound card DOS games.

canthearu wrote:

It might be possible to do this with windows in 386 enhanced mode and Win32s installed. Windows 3.1 standard mode though, nope, don't really see that happening unless you want to rewrite it from scratch.

Yes I'm aware of the Win32s. However on modern systems talking 2017 SkyLake in my own testing you cannot run Windows 3.1 in Enhanced Mode to take advantage of the Win32S. As a result Windows 3.1 Standard Mode works on all systems and suited for the common denominator base.

canthearu wrote:

I struggle to understand why though. Very few systems able to run windows 3.1 properly will also be powerful enough to run DOSBox.

Perhaps the following explanation below will help clarify why such a modern system adapation.

dr_st wrote:

Dominus wrote:

Maybe you need to clarify your goal...

Look for his other threads. The guy basically wants to get every piece of code ever written to run under Windows 3.11. Including, probably, Windows 3.11. 🤣

A bit wild on the assumptions. Every piece of code? The only software I'm asking for is DOSBOX to work under Windows 3.1. Why would I run Windows 3.11 under Windows 3.1? No more pointless than running TOS in TOS. You're not making any sense. If this worked then adding Munt would be only other piece of software to supplement it.

I think it was pretty clear. But to explain the larger goal. On modern systems SkyLake onwards to Coffee Lake and beyond. EHCI aka USB 2.0 is defunct replaced by XHCI aka USB 3.0. Since BIOS emulation allows booted into DOS or 9X you won't need Intel USB 3.0 specific drivers (that don't exist) to get into the OS.

The original idea was to create a simplified USB bootable to Windows 3.1 to run DOSBOX within it to do the sound emulation. Then any DOS game should run. The sound emulation could in theory be outputted to the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio if it were to be simplified. Then anyone could attach this USB boot device to any system and play any DOS game on any modern machine. No need to fiddle with setting up an OS and detect the hardware or install the OS from scratch before you can use it. The next best OS up would be 9X but it requires more work on modern systems to install and might not be suitable for running on different systems. DOS and Windows 3.1 on the other hand can run on any modern system quite easily.

I managed to get Windows 3.1 to run natively on a modern computer should be able to run Windows 3.1 in Standard Mode which could access 512MB compared to conventional DOS. On top of that a 2GB Ramdrive could be used to store additional programs or have Windows 3.1 run off of it before disconnecting the USB storage device.

Since most modern computers have phased out ISA, PCI to a certain extent most are equipped solely with PCIe slots. However it seems you don't appreciate an easier way to run legacy DOS games on modern systems for on the go situations.

What you outline is easier done with a linux system. Especially as this takes the load of working with USB, audio and graphics drivers. Abd more stability...

95DosBox wrote:

To handle the different kinds of sound card emulation. Assuming a proper Windows 3.1 sound device works for the sound output. The best final output device outcome would be using the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio output. Since the HDMI video and audio is carried on the same cable hooking this up to a HDTV you're done.

I am pretty sure there are no windows 3.1 drivers for HD audio. If you want to use dosbox on a system with HD audio, it is modern enough to run at least windows XP, which already run DOSBOX well.

95DosBox wrote:

I think it was pretty clear. But to explain the larger goal. On modern systems SkyLake onwards to Coffee Lake and beyond. EHCI aka USB 2.0 is defunct replaced by XHCI aka USB 3.0. Since BIOS emulation allows booted into DOS or 9X you won't need Intel USB 3.0 specific drivers (that don't exist) to get into the OS.

Systems this new do not run windows 3.1 natively with sound and proper video drivers.

95DosBox wrote:

I managed to get Windows 3.1 to run natively on a modern computer should be able to run Windows 3.1 in Standard Mode which could access 512MB compared to conventional DOS. On top of that a 2GB Ramdrive could be used to store additional programs or have Windows 3.1 run off of it before disconnecting the USB storage device.

If you had a firm grasp of computer software, you should know that windows 3.1 16 bit software does not use the 32-bit flat address model that 32bit windows software does. So if you want to run a program designed for 32-bit windows, like dosbox, then you would have to completely redesign and rewrite it, because it was never designed with consideration for the 16bit segmented system Windows 3.1 standard mode uses. The most realistic target would be to use windows 386 enhanced mode, with Win32s installed on top. This is somewhat closer to the environment offered in windows 95, but would still require considerable work to port to.

As another poster suggested, for your USB idea, Linux would work a LOT better. It is more flexible, it has modern drivers, and has no problem running off USB keys

95DosBox wrote:

To handle the different kinds of sound card emulation. Assuming a proper Windows 3.1 sound device works for the sound output. The best final output device outcome would be using the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio output. Since the HDMI video and audio is carried on the same cable hooking this up to a HDTV you're done.

It would be far easier trying to get SB emulation working under pure DOS.

Keep on mind that:
- Windows 3.1 provides a "consistent" API to access video and audio, but still relies on DOS supporting them (I mean, it is possible to add drivers to Windows 3.1 for devices that do not work in the underlying DOS but I don't know any example).
- Windows 3.1 uses GDI to handle graphics... no direct hardware support (unless using WinG), no acceleration, no support for little things like fullscreen or vsync. It would be a performance nightmare.
- As they said, it is a 16 bit system with some 32 bit functionalities (even using Win32s), so 32 bit games will have a hard time.
- Most systems naturally fitted to run Windows (Pentium and lower) will have hardware that already have Windows 3.x drivers... and will work with pure DOS (even you can use any Pentium 3 era computer and fit it with any ISA card of your choice, and you may find some P4 boards with ISA slots, too). If you need to play old games that run fast, there are many slowdown utilities.
- Pentium 4 and higher have enough raw power to run Linux/Windows + DOSBox + games at a decent speed.
- You need DOS to run Windows 3.1. That limits you to use only 2Gb partitions, because most DOS that support FAT32 won't run Windows 3.1 (some compatibility issues).

So the question is still... Why? Why would you take the overcomplicated (and maybe impossible) way to run DOS games?

jxalex wrote:

Perhaps he means that -- the programs under the DOS window which can use the soundcards supported in a windows environment? The […]
Show full quote

Perhaps he means that -- the programs under the DOS window which can use the soundcards supported in a windows environment? The programs under win3.x DOS window cant use soundcard and (that window was left buggy even for win98se).

@95DOSBOX !!

Once upon a time I asked the developers to add the support for WIN98SE in that Renoise tracker package. They said NO. Later I discovered that many latest program compiler libraries deceased the support for WIN98SE. Since the compilation is not so straightforward, then it would be extra job to them to find the workarounds.
TYPICAL CASE:
Several programs were advertised as running under WIN98SE, but was faulty under that platform, but was working okay under WINXP. I asked the developer to compile it correctly for WIN98SE too. The same trouble - refusal - cant compile for this platform as the compiler newer versions were already deceasing that support for win98se.

Okay, but DOSbox is written entirely for 32bit windows environment.
Now imagine all of this with a request to support 16-bit windows environment (win3.x)!

Do you know what this means?
There is much more to change couple lines as the:
1. the compiler needs to support win3.x, but the applications programmed under these things which require "atleast latest M$ version".
AFAIK the last ones are back in the 90s which could do that.
2. the source code library must take into account the win3.x specifics. This one is up to programmers.
So, besides 64bit-windows-dosbox.exe
32bit-windows-dosbox.exe
linux-dosbox.rpm
there must be
16-bit-windows-dosbox.exe
as a result. 😀
So, based on these steps there are many things to change. But porting all this code to 16bit windows (okay, win32s, but it is still not 32bit) requires a total rewrite.

And then, still it is not ready: AC97 is not supported as soundcard, and the bugs which are still there and limitations in that WIN3.x.

Thanks for taking the time construct a more in depth non knee jerk response especially in a non native language.

The easiest would be to avoid DOSBOX altogether or take sections of its code that can be used for slowing down a game only but no sound card emulation and just pass through only the internal PC speaker audio directly as it were a 386 machine. Some older games like Crime Wave that used the internal PC speaker might be able to work correctly.

jxalex wrote:

3. the sound card must be supported under win3.x, before it can be for DOSbox. So it must have the driver. WHich is different task.

Or a proper Windows 3.1 driver for the Intel HD Graphics HDMI audio output would be a better solution.
Another would be a rewrite of the PCSPK.DRV that uses the internal PC speaker for sound output.

jxalex wrote:

4. The command prompt in win3.x is quite buggy for a DOS applications as there is not good timeshare/timeslices and no way to do something if something tries to violate memory. WIthout that you need to be very picky about the programs and their combinations or system crashes. Even the win98se dos shell is buggy and can on occassion crash the entire machine on some programs combinations - it just is enough to run the Volkov commander and exit.

Do you know what this means?
It is HUGE job, as there is not such source yet, as most compiled things require "atleast latest M$ platform".

It's not meant to be the perfect solution. But you can run Windows 3.1 in Standard Mode and have 512MB of memory. Time slicing probably isn't as bad on a modern system even underclocked. Windows 3.1 although back in the day ran sluggish compared to real DOS on a 386 doesn't run as cumbersome on a modern day system even at 800 MHz Underclocked speeds. Yes Windows 3.1 and 98SE both had their bugginess but overall but Windows 3.1 can be placed on a DOS Ramdrive up to 2GB with no issues. So if it crashes it's not an issue of corrupting anything and is meant as an on the go DOS system booted off the USB of any modern computer. Once everything is copied to the Ramdrive you could unhook the USB device and load Windows 3.1 and just enjoy some retro activity on anyone's system. I've even done some preloading of Word and some Screensavers just for fun. Now it might be mean to boot it up at Best Buy's and leave it running on Windows 3.1 and have people wondering what's wrong with that laptop.

jxalex wrote:

Compared to that to make just the soundblaster emulating driver for the AC97 chipset for DOS and run your thing directly on DOS then. Just making the AC97 sound driver for win3.x system is much simpler job compared to that all listed above,

Yes a pure DOS based Soundblaster emulator that used the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio output is still the best scenario and avoid needing Windows 3.1 or a DOSBOX for it.

jxalex wrote:

The thing that win3.x can run on pentium4 is just becouse of the hardware backward compatibility, and it is somewhat good luck just becouse win3.x has no idea about the expanded hardware possibilities. Or are there AGP card drivers for win3.x to get more than 640x480 density?

The P4 idea was so I could test the DOSBOX sound emulation capabilities in Windows 3.1 since modern systems to find such a sound card is at the moment unavailable.

jxalex wrote:

the win3.x starts within 4 seconds, closes immediately. Better off this way. Running DOS applications in a WIN3.x window is STILL buggy (see reason above) as hell and very risky undertaking. Must be very picky for program choices and their combinations. AFAIK no way to prevent some programs to corrupt memory or entire system and in order to do this it requires some real rewriting.

Actually you'll be surprised some DOS games actually ran better within Windows 3.1's Command Prompt then under Real DOS on modern systems. Again any potential corruption of the OS won't take place as Windows 3.1 will be run off the 2GB DOS Ramdrive. It actually runs quite well and smooth. Only the File Explorer is a horrible interface compared to the Quick Launch of 9X so there's a lot of keyboard usage to get around.

jxalex wrote:

Still... what for it is used? If it is for DOS games then they were supposed to run
on a native DOS and under win3.x DOS window it just calls for trouble.

I dont say that would be impossible, but it is just a huge undertaking.

As we know nothing ever comes easy. I think the same could be said of DOSBOX before it was fully functional. Without DOSBOX I wonder if retro hardware would be more popular since modern equipment was unusable.

jxalex wrote:

When I made some piece of hardware then I made the program to run directly on the hardware under the DOS becouse for windows it would be too much extra job and then I would not get the stability which needed. Under windows it should require first drivers, then a program itself, but also it requires to debug all these troubles and limitations under the windows environment specifically.

What hardware did you create?

What do you think about accessing the Intel HD Graphics as the sound output via HDMI Audio under DOS?

jxalex wrote:

Some serious music programs written for win3.x perhaps were there just becouse it provided some standardized soundcard interface but the rest of it was the programmer developed becouse they did not existed in a correct way in that win3.x for a multitrack recorder, especially timers and filecaching.

Back then Windows 3.1 never really was a favorite for myself but Word and Sound Wave editing worked really well back then for that particular OS so it had its purpose till 9X came along. I mainly stayed in DOS most of the time as running within 3.1 slowed down the system.

jxalex wrote:

Now do you know what for is there the DOSbox for a windows XP, 7, 8, 9, ? why not to just run the DOS thing on a "command prompt" ?! 😉 😁

There isn't a Windows 9. 8 was a dud so MS had to skip to 10 to avoid the backlash.

Running it under DOS I've already done. It's just a newer method for running DOS games on the go via USB Device that I even considered Windows 3.1 since it might be easier to program a sound card driver for it then in pure DOS and do a bit more like word processing or sound editing.

Now the only thing separating DOS games from really functional the way it was back in the day is the DOS Sound Blaster sound card compatibility issue. So the idea of having a Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio working in DOS as an emulated Sound Blaster 1.0 would carry it far and simplify the process not needing Windows 3.1 or 9X.

95DosBox wrote:

Just for clarification I am "NOT" trying to run Windows 3.1 under DOSBOX. I am hoping to use DOSBOX under Windows 3.1 natively.

jxalex wrote:

Now to whom THIS clarification is necessary, on this forum here?

To those who are running Windows 3.1 inside DOSBOX of course which is the more common scenario.

95DosBox wrote:

Thanks for taking the time construct a more in depth non knee jerk response especially in a non native language.

Thank You.
(And I thought to be invisible for others, due to my "cryptic" language use.) So, here the conclusion -- it was not at all cryptic once people just take time to read.

It is just interesting topic to me since I used the win3.x on AMD 450MHz machine (win3.x and with DOS 7.1 with some FAT32 partitions too on adaptec SCSI), until 2005 and the new motherboards and soundcards had no longer ISA bus and no drivers for it.

The machine to slow down can be easier to do than expected, to get it faster is hard.

jxalex wrote:

Compared to that to make just the soundblaster emulating driver for the AC97 chipset for DOS and run your thing directly on DOS then. Just making the AC97 sound driver for win3.x system is much simpler job compared to that all listed above,

Yes a pure DOS based Soundblaster emulator that used the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio output is still the best scenario and avoid needing Windows 3.1 or a DOSBOX for it.

well, why not to use virtual soundblaster driver for COVOX?
Then it is solved . still it does not provide solution for OPL sounds.
Otherwise you are very much better to just have the some 486 motherboard with a turbo switch, couple CPUs which you swap depending on the speeds needed. one 33Mhz and 100Mhz would be enough I guess. Also soundblaster 1.0 can support many many ISA bus cards, and yet here in forums are those who make these cards too, so it would be better to begin to construct yourself too.

jxalex wrote:

Still... what for it is used? If it is for DOS games then they were supposed to run
on a native DOS and under win3.x DOS window it just calls for trouble.

I dont say that would be impossible, but it is just a huge undertaking.

As we know nothing ever comes easy. I think the same could be said of DOSBOX before it was fully functional. Without DOSBOX I wonder if retro hardware would be more popular since modern equipment was unusable.

Exactly the same thought.
Not only becouse of games but becouse of expensive hardware bought in the past which is still practical.
you just dont throw away programs you bought (or made yourself!) and hardware you made yourself which has still very much use. Neither I wont throw away becouse some corporation says or dictates what is "supported" or not. Also not just for making notes there should be GHz machines. They are very goodmachines as with possibility to make the hardware of our own and not to be dependant from those huge corporations!
Becouse the older computers were possible to have for production and creation too than consumtion only. It is something man never thinks about if being used with average office desktop computer if there are external peripherals as multitrack soundcards, 16 MIDI port I/O devices. My another fellow uses the same machine more than 20 years as the CNC controller, no need for "upgrade".

25 years ago boys thought about making programs of our own, now everything aligns accordingly to M$ "trends" and thus the men (who were boys before) have given up making programs of our own since the drivers say "requires latest M$". Wait its worse the most common thought is "if it is not for sale then it does not exist". Unfortunate, isnt it? Becouse many things man could do yourself atleast and in the past about software demoscene have established standards of their own if to count some numerous trackers and their music file formats, graphics, perhaps something more.Also in some areas money is not help becouse it cant be bought if it does not exist as it needs more work and knowledge.
So, what to do? This is the thing what cant be solved even with money. can solved only if humans can consent with habits. 😉

Real development began after the M$ declared the DOS as unsupported, THEN came many programs which were not even developed before? USB, FIREWIRE support, video player, CD-recording, webbrowser (arachne) and many things more what people are unaware of the DOS has. Including CNC machine control program (made 2005). So everything is not just M$.

Also I asked in one thread if there is anything else besides games and benchmark programs on their retro systems. 😉
YES. some have...
but here we are and this forum!

jxalex wrote:

When I made some piece of hardware then I made the program to run directly on the hardware under the DOS becouse for windows it would be too much extra job and then I would not get the stability which needed. Under windows it should require first drivers, then a program itself, but also it requires to debug all these troubles and limitations under the windows environment specifically.

What hardware did you create?

the 8x8 port 16-bit ISA bus I/O card which I made 2 years ago, dump read and programming EPROM/SRAM chips and all other custom chips. (I always wanted having 8 LPT ports to mess around for data output and the another 8 LPT ports for data input. 😀 )
I did it myself becouse the willem programmer which I bought did not had the claimed support, it had closed software, ridiculous demands for platforms or new adapters, thus become a way too expensive. Also other solutions would have been very expensive and requires many things, but once I hit the limit the same answer comes up again -- buy new, spend more $$$$. This way as I did, perhaps saved aprox 2000 USD.

I considered this ISA bus move becouse everything other was a way too slow and messy (arduino), industrial boards were expensive, unreliable (windows early versions programming) or had unreasonable demands for such a simple task (everything except DOS). Also other option would have been PCI, but for this the components would be more expensive to make it entirely with discrete logic and on those days I had no idea about affordable CPLD chips for home.
But now the whole line of new ideas came. And I have the software made all myself then too which I can adapt for every new item.

What do you think about accessing the Intel HD Graphics as the sound output via HDMI Audio under DOS?

I have no idea until there is no specifications or development kit for this hardware.

Running it under DOS I've already done. It's just a newer method for running DOS games on the go via USB Device that I even considered Windows 3.1 since it might be easier to program a sound card driver for it then in pure DOS and do a bit more like word processing or sound editing.

should be the sound driver for that particular chipset in machine, and some timer which slows down machine . Perhaps someone
has the soundblaster emulator for that intel HD audio or AC97 ones.

Otherwise sounds serious work, considering how complex that dosbox software itself is then livelinux on a bootable DVD with dos emulator would be better option, if it is only for games.

But do not ask me becouse I dont know, yet, so much about it, becouse all this journey lies ahead of me soon after I have a soundcard of my own with its emulation ready and much more opinions to get lost with guesses if it is the hardware or software fault if something does not work.
Now the only thing separating DOS games from really functional the way it was back in the day is the DOS Sound Blaster sound card compatibility issue.

Perhaps people will tire soon about constantly buying and throwing away the software AND the programmers get sick about programming items which are trashed after every second year and thus undoing their work.

here we are just in vogons as you can see the soundcard makers, while others just are happy with dosbox and call it a day.

Retro programs imitations... with newest limitations!
about the old computers... yes... it all makes me wonder... there are also some retro SOFTWARE clone versions. But weird as it is -- all those which imitate 30 year old 286 programs, now their imitations must have latest M$ or linux release with multicore 3GHz machine
in order to run. I think it is ridiculous!! Why not to launch for the retro platform as well that improved version too!?
I guess, perhaps everyone (except me) finds it very very normal situation to deal with retro only at the latest platforms.

But no wait "there is more" ... the newer versions are more limited than its original version becouse they fail with hardware support (MIDI!). The FT2 clone makers said out loud that the MIDI I/O interface will not be implemented, while the DOS version has full MIDI support which I used to make music with hardware synths in both input and output usage.

Dominus wrote:

What you outline is easier done with a linux system. Especially as this takes the load of working with USB, audio and graphics drivers. Abd more stability...

While that might be true of Linux I find it much easier to work in DOS and sticking with the FAT/FAT32 type setup and creating the bootable DOS media with a USB Floppy disk. I'm sure there's a Linux approach for dealing with the Intel USB 3.0.

This might be good for an alternative project. I assume you are just running DOSBOX inside Linux so this is equivalent in a way of running it in Windows 2000 or XP minus being able to run anything but DOS and Linux programs.

How small is the OS size once all that's done on the Linux DOSBOX setup?

What flavor of Linux would be the smallest and easiest to setup for the common layman?

canthearu wrote:

I am pretty sure there are no windows 3.1 drivers for HD audio. If you want to use dosbox on a system with HD audio, it is modern enough to run at least windows XP, which already run DOSBOX well.

XP does run DOSBOX well but no Intel USB 3.0 drivers exist to boot into it. On newer chipsets such as SkyLake or Coffee Lake Windows 7 is the minimum OS for the drivers. Then there's the ACPI issue for XP.

canthearu wrote:

Systems this new do not run windows 3.1 natively with sound and proper video drivers.

Windows 3.1 will run on systems this new. The sound driver is probably the only real issue at the moment making it a complete working Windows 3.1 environment. I believe it just runs in standard VGA 16 color mode only for now. I haven't tested all the 256 color drivers to see if any of them work with the Intel HD Graphics on it.

canthearu wrote:

If you had a firm grasp of computer software, you should know that windows 3.1 16 bit software does not use the 32-bit flat address model that 32bit windows software does. So if you want to run a program designed for 32-bit windows, like dosbox, then you would have to completely redesign and rewrite it, because it was never designed with consideration for the 16bit segmented system Windows 3.1 standard mode uses. The most realistic target would be to use windows 386 enhanced mode, with Win32s installed on top. This is somewhat closer to the environment offered in windows 95, but would still require considerable work to port to.

I think I've already gotten a firm grasp of computer software in general for the OS, drivers, software applications and utilities. I probably have a larger software collection than you have and more legacy hardware since I did have a computer store running during the Apple ][ days. If you're a programmer then that's something you would have more knowledge to contribute in that area which it sounds like you are hinting. From a hardware standpoint I have managed to get every OS from DOS, Windows 3.1, 9X, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, W7, and W10 running on one modern Coffee Lake system. Now if you've managed to do the same then you would have firmer grasp of computer hardware to assist if you can also program. I've also tested beta versions of 9X, and NT 4.0 which don't work on such new chipsets.

I'm already aware that Windows 3.1 is 16-Bit unless patched to Win32S and even if you were to run it though it's not 100% compatible with 9X software. I already had attempted modifying the DOSBOX to run inside Windows 3.1 Standard and it didn't work which is why only 9X seems to be the lowest rung on compatibility you can go for now.

However if it can't be done for Windows 3.1 I do wonder what you would have said about DOSBOX had it only existed in 64-Bit code and we were all using 64-Bit Operating systems and someone suggested creating a DOSBOX version for an older 32-Bit Operating systems like Windows 2000 and being given an answer similar to yours.

Since DOSBOX only exists in 32-Bit then a rewrite to 16-Bit would be needed as you stated or porting a DOSBOX equivalent that could run in real DOS would be better solution. Just to let you know the Windows 386 Enhanced mode will not work on modern processors at the moment so Windows 3.1 32S just won't be possible as I've tried this already which is why the 512MB Standard mode is the common denominator that does work on all systems without issues and is safe.

canthearu wrote:

As another poster suggested, for your USB idea, Linux would work a LOT better. It is more flexible, it has modern drivers, and has no problem running off USB keys

Linux probably would require more work to setup for the average user compared to what I'm doing. Unless you've done this type of setup before and can create the most compact USB bootable Linux / DOSBox with complete support for all Intel HD Graphics models with full Intel USB 3.0 support and upload such an image people could use right away I'll test it out for compatibility.

For now I'm trying to keep it running in a native DOS based environment so if it can be done in real DOS plus some form of Sound Blaster emulation for the Intel HD Graphics HDMI Audio then that would be the simpler approach if all these Windows 3.1 type issues can't be solved or involve too much work as you've stated. But as all undertakings go it always involves 99% naysayers then nothing would ever get done if that 1% didn't go forward in the attempt against the odds. I have to wonder if DOSBOX received this kind of attitude at the time when it got started.

Any idea how long DOSBOX was conceived before it got to v0.50?

2002-07-26
to
2009-05-27

It took I'm guessing 7 years of hard work to get to a decent working version v0.73.

VDMSound started in July 4, 2000.

So at least by 2000 DosBox was either being worked on or prior.

For Linux there are live CDs and images for USB drives that do all the necessary driver stuff on startup and if the next thing they do is start DOSBox it's what you outlined, without finding someone to do all the needed driver coding which is not an easy piece of cake these days.

95DosBox wrote:

A bit wild on the assumptions. Every piece of code? The only software I'm asking for is DOSBOX to work under Windows 3.1. Why would I run Windows 3.11 under Windows 3.1?

I mistyped. I meant to type "Windows 3.1". That was a hyperbole. The one not making sense here is you. Your idea is lunacy. It's pretty high up in the charts of crazy ideas trying to solve imaginary problems that I've seen on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

"Every piece of code" is not far from truth, because you don't understand how much code is actually written to support modern OSes on modern hardware and programs such as DOSBox on top of modern OSes.

Dominus wrote:

What you outline is easier done with a linux system.

Or any modern version of Windows, if one doesn't like Linux. Windows-to-Go is supported since Win8.1. Granted that limits the choices of flash drive a bit, but gives a consistent experience.

Heck, you don't even need any bootable crap. Pop a flash drive with DOSBOX into any modern system, and every DOS game will work (possibly after some minor fiddling with DOSBOX.CONF).

Come on guys!

Linux probably would require more work to setup for the *average* user compared to what I'm doing. Unless you've done this type of setup before and can create the most compact USB bootable Linux / DOSBox with complete support for all Intel HD Graphics models with full Intel USB 3.0 support and upload such an image people could use right away I'll test it out for compatibility.

does this hint mean that he actually works in a computers store which sells computers?

Then thats the chance to get the other people to learn again the DOS again... directly on the showroom on new computers!
When there will be more of those who know quite less about computers, but STILL use the DOS then there will be demand and voila! the big corporations have to adapt for the masses demand instead and ... we are not just a small minority anymore. 😉

jxalex wrote:

Thank You. (And I thought to be invisible for others, due to my "cryptic" language use.) So, here the conclusion -- it was not a […]
Show full quote

Thank You.
(And I thought to be invisible for others, due to my "cryptic" language use.) So, here the conclusion -- it was not at all cryptic once people just take time to read.

It is just interesting topic to me since I used the win3.x on AMD 450MHz machine (win3.x and with DOS 7.1 with some FAT32 partitions too on adaptec SCSI), until 2005 and the new motherboards and soundcards had no longer ISA bus and no drivers for it.

The machine to slow down can be easier to do than expected, to get it faster is hard.

Well aside from some minor misspellings it is still decipherable. But yes my P4 would probably be best suited for a full Windows 3.1 experience. Only issue is the P4 runs too hot and cannot be passively cooled down. I even went to switching to underclocked CPUs that ran cooler. It may require an actual BIOS MOD to lower the CPU Core Voltage or default clock speed. It would probably run just fine if it could be pushed down to 400MHz. P4's are notorious for being hot CPUs. The P3 on the other hand could be BIOS downclocked down to 300 MHz and still run fanless.

But since I was able to still use Windows 3.1 on a Coffee Lake even for Word Processing or Screen Savers it's still quite impressive to see. Boot time is probably less than 1 second. The PCSPK driver does work but if a proper CMI 8738 driver that worked on Windows 3.1 was available that might actually be quite a decent Windows 3.1 retro system.

jxalex wrote:

Compared to that to make just the soundblaster emulating driver for the AC97 chipset for DOS and run your thing directly on DOS then. Just making the AC97 sound driver for win3.x system is much simpler job compared to that all listed above,

Probably but the video output is through HDMI and the AC97 would not be able to interface to send the audio signal together. Now I have noticed the Realtek Audio is required to be active before the Intel HD Audio will function so there is something tied there so they must work together in order for HDMI audio to be utilized.

jxalex wrote:

well, why not to use virtual soundblaster driver for COVOX?
Then it is solved . still it does not provide solution for OPL sounds.

Otherwise you are very much better to just have the some 486 motherboard with a turbo switch, couple CPUs which you swap depending on the speeds needed. one 33Mhz and 100Mhz would be enough I guess. Also soundblaster 1.0 can support many many ISA bus cards, and yet here in forums are those who make these cards too, so it would be better to begin to construct yourself too.

Reading about the results of this Covox, decent sound driver Windows 95?
It's a LPT Printer Port interface. My Coffee Lake does have this port but I was looking toward what components are commonly found in modern motherboards that could be reused by emulators. Not all modern motherboards will have LPT ports some only have Serial Ports but both these ports are just headers on the motherboards that still need to adapted to a real connector.

About constructing my own card I'm not a hardware engineer. It would have been nice had Creative Labs actually invested the time to create a method to pass on the Sound Blaster emulation to a PCI sound card at the time instead of SB-Link and working on specific chipsets. I do wonder however what if Sound Blaster had just come out 5 years later when PCI was more common. Then we wouldn't be having these issues and PCI and PCIe sound cards could have easily worked in real DOS.

jxalex wrote:

Still... what for it is used? If it is for DOS games then they were supposed to run
on a native DOS and under win3.x DOS window it just calls for trouble.

I dont say that would be impossible, but it is just a huge undertaking.

At the time I thought the extra access to memory may prove useful for sophisticated emulation than running under conventional DOS. But it's probably easier to keep it simple and stick with Pure DOS and find a way to conserve as much conventional memory while loading this Sound Blaster emulator.

jxalex wrote:

Exactly the same thought. Not only because of games but because of expensive hardware bought in the past which is still practic […]
Show full quote

Exactly the same thought.
Not only because of games but because of expensive hardware bought in the past which is still practical.
You just don't throw away programs you bought (or made yourself!) and hardware you made yourself which has still very much use. Neither I wont throw away because some corporation says or dictates what is "supported" or not. Also not just for making notes there should be GHz machines. They are very good machines as with possibility to make the hardware of our own and not to be dependent from those huge corporations!
Because the older computers were possible to have for production and creation too than consumption only. It is something man never thinks about if being used with average office desktop computer if there are external peripherals as multitrack soundcards, 16 MIDI port I/O devices. My another fellow uses the same machine more than 20 years as the CNC controller, no need for "upgrade".

25 years ago boys thought about making programs of our own, now everything aligns accordingly to M$ "trends" and thus the men (who were boys before) have given up making programs of our own since the drivers say "requires latest M$". Wait it's worse the most common thought is "if it is not for sale then it does not exist". Unfortunate, isn't it? Because many things man could do yourself at least and in the past about software demo scene have established standards of their own if to count some numerous trackers and their music file formats, graphics, perhaps something more.Also in some areas money is not help because it cant be bought if it does not exist as it needs more work and knowledge.
So, what to do? This is the thing what cant be solved even with money. can solved only if humans can consent with habits. 😉

Real development began after the M$ declared the DOS as unsupported, THEN came many programs which were not even developed before? USB, FIREWIRE support, video player, CD-recording, webbrowser (arachne) and many things more what people are unaware of the DOS has. Including CNC machine control program (made 2005). So everything is not just M$.

Also I asked in one thread if there is anything else besides games and benchmark programs on their retro systems. 😉
YES. some have...
but here we are and this forum!

Well I still got a hoard of mint condition XT motherboards and I'm sure at one point in time it was considered junk but I find it better to preserve these when possible. If any of these died on me I'd have plenty of spares.

Arachne I could understand to extend DOS support at the time on like a 386 or 486. I used it a few times myself but USB seemed to be the result of MS Windows. Firewire was at first used on Apple technology that I liked for DVCams. You could record some decent 720P on just a P3 laptop. Unfortunately Firewire 1600 and 3200 never really took place as they would have been superior than USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 for Video Cameras as CPU utilization was low.

A lot of technology is still usable without needing to go beyond Windows 2003 Server. It happily can be run still on modern chipsets like Coffee Lake but MS needs money so they'll do whatever it takes to push you off onto their latest OS.

jxalex wrote:

the 8x8 port 16-bit ISA bus I/O card which I made 2 years ago, dump read and programming EPROM/SRAM chips and all other custom c […]
Show full quote

the 8x8 port 16-bit ISA bus I/O card which I made 2 years ago, dump read and programming EPROM/SRAM chips and all other custom chips. (I always wanted having 8 LPT ports to mess around for data output and the another 8 LPT ports for data input. 😀 )
I did it myself because the willem programmer which I bought did not had the claimed support, it had closed software, ridiculous demands for platforms or new adapters, thus become a way too expensive. Also other solutions would have been very expensive and requires many things, but once I hit the limit the same answer comes up again -- buy new, spend more $$$$. This way as I did, perhaps saved approx 2000 USD.

I considered this ISA bus move because everything other was a way too slow and messy (arduino), industrial boards were expensive, unreliable (windows early versions programming) or had unreasonable demands for such a simple task (everything except DOS). Also other option would have been PCI, but for this the components would be more expensive to make it entirely with discrete logic and on those days I had no idea about affordable CPLD chips for home.
But now the whole line of new ideas came. And I have the software made all myself then too which I can adapt for every new item.

Well to really resurrect ISA you'd need to a billionaire and buy out some top motherboard manufacturers and update say an intel 800 series chipset that supported ISA and find a way that it could communicate to work alongside a PCIe slot motherboard. If they could still make PCI slots motherboards I can't see why 1 or 2 ISA slots still couldn't exist for legacy applications. I've seen Floppy Drive controllers exist on modern motherboards where they shouldn't have so it's possible if you had enough money it could be done and sell these modern motherboards that are specially geared towards retro enthusiasts.

jxalex wrote:

should be the sound driver for that particular chipset in machine, and some timer which slows down machine . Perhaps someone has […]
Show full quote

should be the sound driver for that particular chipset in machine, and some timer which slows down machine . Perhaps someone
has the soundblaster emulator for that intel HD audio or AC97 ones.

Otherwise sounds serious work, considering how complex that dosbox software itself is then livelinux on a bootable DVD with dos emulator would be better option, if it is only for games.

But do not ask me because I dont know, yet, so much about it, because all this journey lies ahead of me soon after I have a soundcard of my own with its emulation ready and much more opinions to get lost with guesses if it is the hardware or software fault if something does not work.
Now the only thing separating DOS games from really functional the way it was back in the day is the DOS Sound Blaster sound card compatibility issue.

Perhaps people will tire soon about constantly buying and throwing away the software AND the programmers get sick about programming items which are trashed after every second year and thus undoing their work.

here we are just in vogons as you can see the soundcard makers, while others just are happy with dosbox and call it a day.

Retro programs imitations... with newest limitations!
about the old computers... yes... it all makes me wonder... there are also some retro SOFTWARE clone versions. But weird as it is -- all those which imitate 30 year old 286 programs, now their imitations must have latest M$ or linux release with multicore 3GHz machine
in order to run. I think it is ridiculous!! Why not to launch for the retro platform as well that improved version too!?
I guess, perhaps everyone (except me) finds it very very normal situation to deal with retro only at the latest platforms.

But no wait "there is more" ... the newer versions are more limited than its original version becouse they fail with hardware support (MIDI!). The FT2 clone makers said out loud that the MIDI I/O interface will not be implemented, while the DOS version has full MIDI support which I used to make music with hardware synths in both input and output usage.

One reason why emulation isn't 100% perfect but as time goes on older equipment ends up costing more and rarer in some cases to scoop up so it makes it less likely to try it so it ends up that emulation will become how most will experience it.

95DosBox, take time to read. 😉

Linux probably would require more work to setup for the average user compared to what I'm doing. Unless you've done this type of setup before and can create the most compact USB bootable Linux / DOSBox with complete support for all Intel HD Graphics models with full Intel USB 3.0 support and upload such an image people could use right away I'll test it out for compatibility.

... man must be a professor, becouse in troubled times otherwise he is alone. Even the typical computer service is not trained for this.

Now lets imagine average computer user who is used to fuckbooking and watch "funny" videos, never needed to read a book last 10 years, and has the attitude that there is nothing to learn about operating systems and computers.
BUT now instead should change habits , take a block and so that every evening 2 hours learning about what is the file system, write down like in school, swap and what means under linux that "/etc" thing. .. ?
Good luck, one year every evening couple hours to learn with a noteblock in hand.
It was frustrating even to nerd like me! But to those average persons, it is unlikely to have even such minimal patience , they cant do that not in a 10 years even if behind that skill would unlock 1001 beautiful girls or 1001 games.

I could not even teach to my girlfriend how to use Total Commander, or FastStone and the elementary file organizing with these 2 programs.

But sure, these solutions with modern computer for a DOS game trouble is just like being forced to buy a whole new house, while all you want is paint for old mailbox. 😁 😉

Just something you said is very real assumtion...

95DosBox wrote:

Dominus wrote:

What you outline is easier done with a linux system. Especially as this takes the load of working with USB, audio and graphics drivers. Abd more stability...

While that might be true of Linux I find it much easier to work in DOS and sticking with the FAT/FAT32 type setup and creating the bootable DOS media with a USB Floppy disk. I'm sure there's a Linux approach for dealing with the Intel USB 3.0.

...becouse, BECOUSE the DOS system is easier to keep under your own control. DOS does not change every second year like Ubuntu or Mandriva! For a Linux you need to first get a pencil and notepad to write down everything first year.
Now it is yes more stable and developed better than 20 years ago, but they decease the most common console programs and the configuration or customization options are vanishing or humiliating just like there is just a one shoe for all sizes which change every year and there is no correct ready-written proper downloadable help. All is like write to forum and wait, wait a week.

Also I have my preferences: the 12 tty consoles with text mode, NFS server,mpg321, flac, some programs require glibc2, joe, mc.
Once I migrated from Redhat 7.3 to Mandriva 2009.0 .. alright, it was different but I could use my existing knowledge and customize that the same way as the Redhat 7.3 was. But once I installed on one computer Ubuntu 12.04 LTS then everything was different, the configuration files were in the places like other version. so, I continue with Mandriva 2009.0 until I learn the configuration of the new setup. 2 years passed and I had a pause becouse of frustration. That 12.04 got too old, but I knew where are the configuration files and what to change exactly. So, now I tried ubuntu 16.04 LTS... but alas! This release the configuration files once again hide
to new place compared to 12.04 version! Once I found, but still dont know everything needed for all customization. 😁 JUst couple days ago I also got idea to try Ubuntu 18.04 -- and you know what? again back from zero! -- All the configuration files were AGAIN in the new places!!! So, it is endless hide-and-seek! NOW WHY IS THAT SO?
I cant even find proper help. I cant have 12 ttys, even worse - those who asked how to do it, they dont know how to solve situation and offer tmux or other workaround. I cant have the big font (imagine reading on the console a text which has tiny letters and all at the left side!). The recommendations for screen resolutions did not helped (now remember, under windows 3.1 you had the possibility with a shortcut to change screen resolution and desktop size instantly with ATI MACH64VT drivers!), but it is never with linux so far this way.
and every time the new LTS release is out then the configuration files are again moved to another place, they try to mimic the last M$ platforms, while the askubuntu is full of questions about "how to I get the consoles back?" and about changing the fonts on console bigger and I am not alone with this trouble.
Also some programs refuse to work -- the reason? glibc is "too new version". (so far I knew that trouble was only under M$ platforms that .DLL files missing, but now it is under linux versions too and upward incompatibility!). And no, I am NOT a professor for this and my life is not to spend entire next year about configuring...

Also, now it means that I have to begin all over again. BUT once the new version is out, I am very damn bloody much sure -- it will all flush again all that knowledge. It will then again take (based on the already existing knowledge and skills) couple weeks to configure and read and learn and download since all these changes of files and configurations were unnecessary forced by development team or limited.
I would never ever do that (and would be happy with mandriva ... or DOS) effort if there would be webbrowsers saying that this or that webpage requires latest version (...and without any reason of the bank website dumbheads). But I would never pay for M$ platforms as they render those even more and faster obsolete. Instead of that the time would be spent for learning electronics instead and creating some software which I just write once and know forever and not changing every year like they do!
I have enough the cdwriting, music creating and several hardware items which for I have paid already and so why I have to throw away that becouse they just say what is obsolete or not? I continue using instead becouse it aint broken and it aint missing.

How small is the OS size once all that's done on the Linux DOSBOX setup?

some live DVDs are, which take eternity to load, but to installed after several retrys as a live bootable image - several gigabytes.

What flavor of Linux would be the smallest and easiest to setup for the common layman?

OR worse....the most concern would be -- where from to ask the help when in trouble? So, which flavour of Linux the local computer service repairman would be capable too?
If he cant fix it, and neither that computer shop can, then he is alone with that trouble, as not everything can fixed with "just reinstall".

However if it can't be done for Windows 3.1 I do wonder what you would have said about DOSBOX had it only existed in 64-Bit code and we were all using 64-Bit Operating systems and someone suggested creating a DOSBOX version for an older 32-Bit Operating systems like Windows 2000 and being given an answer similar to yours.

but it is so already! The compilators of the new versions decease bit by bit the support for 32-bit platforms since several reasons, while behind that can be also sales strategy to make dependency, while there is really no difficulty why there should not still be included the 16-bit platform compiling too. But the developers use the builtin libraries and it is extra job then to add extra support (which was removed).
Also the compilers are commercial and the sales just will be ended. JUst like man cant buy OLD version of the Cubase and corporation forces the newest only.

Hey, there are also many programs installs which require ridiculously high platform, only becouse the developer uses the latest tool which cant compile the program for a lower platform! But if the same program compiled for a 16-bit Windows, then it would also work with WIN XP too and upwards. Or does someone say that sudoku generator REALLY must use atleast windows XP or web browser?!
Also neither the text editors should require GHz speeds.

I have to wonder if DOSBOX received this kind of attitude at the time when it got started. Any idea how long DOSBOX was conceive […]
Show full quote

I have to wonder if DOSBOX received this kind of attitude at the time when it got started.
Any idea how long DOSBOX was conceived before it got to v0.50?
2002-07-26
to
2009-05-27
It took I'm guessing 7 years of hard work to get to a decent working version v0.73.
VDMSound started in July 4, 2000.
So at least by 2000 DosBox was either being worked on or prior.

It is also developed not as a commercial article so it really takes extra time. It is totally normal if the development goes in a way that just those who came in and look and start developing.
Also the deceasing support for older platform is to follow as the developers move on to new and newer and newer compilers which have libraries to make their work easier, but ooppppsssss wont be anymore usable on those machines which worked back then.

Still... the hope will be if there come these
1. TSRs to slow down CPUs,
2. the programs which emulate SOundblaster. It is still then like a TSR for a PCI bus based soundblaster but even if to know that, the specifications are must be to know and documentation. But the average age of enthusiastic hardware programmers middle age is increasing...