Emulation Windows 1.04

[honx]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

otherwise it would not be possible to install or update firmware on the hardware, install particular driver, etc.

this was also possible in windows xp 64 bit. and 64 bit versions don't even have dos mode.
this virtual machine was available for 32 bit versions of windows nt up to windows xp only.

this feature is being phased out in the x86-64 architecture.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

this was also possible in windows xp 64 bit. and 64 bit versions don't even have dos mode.
this virtual machine was available for 32 bit versions of windows nt up to windows xp only.

Known limitations XP Professional x64

There are some common issues that arise with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

Does not include NTVDM or Windows on Windows, so 16-bit Windows applications or native MS-DOS applications cannot run. Some old 32-bit programs use 16-bit installers which do not run; however, replacements for 16-bit installers such as ACME Setup versions 2.6, 3.0, 3.01, 3.1 and InstallShield 5.x are hardcoded

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window...al_x64_Edition

[honx]

here it is clear: ntvdm - vdm = "virtual dos machine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine
if even the name of it says it's a virtual machine than it has to be a virtual machine...

[AMIGASYSTEM]

I'm not an expert in this, but I think it's a sort of hardware interpreter and not a real Virtual Machine "closed" with the outside, I hope some expert will do some light

[honx]

even microsoft (these are the guys who made this thing) themselves say:

NTVDM stands for NT Virtual Dos Machine.
NTVDM is a system component of all IA-32 editions of the Windows NT family which allows execution of 16-bit Windows and 16-bit / 32-bit DOS applications.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

even microsoft (these are the guys who made this thing) themselves say:

Microsoft calls him MS-DOS Subsystem:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...-dos-or-16-bit

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...OS%20Subsystem

[honx]

that will be too stupid for me now, i'm out of here...

[Hewitson]

All I can do is shake my head at this thread... Anyone calling Windows 1.x an operating system needs to seriously upgrade their knowledge of computers.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

At that time it was, it analyzes the word "Operating System", also MS-DOS is an operating system

[honx]

[AMIGASYSTEM]

I'm sorry , This is my AmigaXP (Skin)

[S0ulA55a551n]

Originally Posted by honx

same with .net or java on on modern systems. .net applications require .net to be installed and java applications need java environment.
both .net and java runtime environment are no operating systems. there is no .net os or java os...

Not the same really as both of those also need an OS to run in the first place , they are both run times that execute bytecode.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

In any case there is also a sort of Java OS!

http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/

[honx]

Originally Posted by S0ulA55a551n

Not the same really as both of those also need an OS to run in the first place , they are both run times that execute bytecode.

that's exactly what i was saying in my post you quoted... so let me try to speak plain english:
.net applications need .net runtime and .net runtime needs an os, as .net is no operating system.
java applications need java runtime and java runtime needs an os, as java is no operating system.
that's what i was saying, so where exactly is the problem?

also windows 1.04 needs an os to run in the first place (ms dos, pc dos or equivalent).
and then windows 1.04 executes software built for use along with this windows 1.04 gui.
as one might say, windows 1.04 could be somehow like a runtime, for comparison sake.
no bytecode (didn't even exist in the 80s), but software requiring other software to run.
so in this context it is quasi the same...

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

In any case there is also a sort of Java OS!

http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/

well, good for you. there is an os based on java. but it is not "THE" java operating system...

now i'm really out of this silly thread, i'm fed up.

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

At that time it was, it analyzes the word "Operating System", also MS-DOS is an operating system

Rubbish. Back then, Windows was nothing but a GUI which runs on top of DOS.

Think of it like an Amiga. AmigaDOS is the operating system, Workbench runs on top of it.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

@ honx
do not get angry we're just arguing nicely

@Hewitson
I used the definition of Wikipedia:

MS-DOS is an operating system for x86-based personal computers mostly developed by Microsoft. ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

[BastyCDGS]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

I would say no, MS-DOS can not run native Windows 1.4 applications

No it isn't. Windows 1.04 is more like muimaster.library on Amiga, albeit with a small difference. MUI applications require it and won't run with it. But that doesn't make MUI an operating system.


So old Windows versions can be compared like DOS shared libraries which render GUI stuff.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by BastyCDGS

No it isn't. Windows 1.04 is more like muimaster.library on Amiga.

I think they are two different things, even here Wikipedia helps !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0#Windows_1.04

[BastyCDGS]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

I think they are two different things, even here Wikipedia helps !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0#Windows_1.04

Please read my post more carefully. I have never said that it is the same, instead I did say, it's more like or can be compared to MUI. I even mentioned that there are small differences.


If you think if Windows 1.04 is an operating system, because it adds some own drivers:
Don't forget that many DOS programs did that, too. Almost every DOS game shipped with it's own soundcard drivers.
DOS applications usually shipped with own printer drivers.


Does that cause those games/applications to become operating systems? I don't think so!

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Sorry but the translation does not help, for me that in 1984 (i was already 30 years old), those primitive calculators as confirmed by Wikipedia represented Operating Systems regardless of what they could do, today perhaps it no longer makes sense to call them Operating Systems but then they were.

Excuse me but with this I close my replies avoiding to annoy someone and excuse me if I have already done