Searching \ for ' [OT] DOS PM program and Win2000 Pro?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=dos+program+win2000
Search entire site for: 'DOS PM program and Win2000 Pro?'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'[PICLIST] [OT] DOS PM program and Win2000 Pro?'
2000\12\13@123606 by Andrew E. Kalman

flavicon
face
Hi All.

On my PIC development machine I'm currently running Win 98. Two
things I must have if migrating to Win2000 are my PICMASTER, and an
older graphical DOS Protected Mode program (not PIC-related) that I
use regularly. Now that I've found out that the PICMASTER can be used
under NT/2000, I must address the second issue, and wondered if
anyone has input on it.

Currently, this DOS PM program uses a DOS extender (Rational? Phar
Lap?) to access expanded memory up to 16MB. In order to run it, I
must use the "Restart in MS-DOS" mode option under Start->Shut Down.
It won't run in a Win98 DOS window. It's a bit inconvenient, to be
sure, but it works reliably, and I have full access to all hard disks
even from within the DOS PM program.

Is there any way to run DOS PM programs on a Win2000 machine? Win
98's "DOS" is still compatible enough with the DOS extender that it
all works. But I'm worried that Win2000 won't support this type of
legacy operation. I see no mentions of DOS other than the command
prompt.

Any suggestions?

The PM program in question is prohibitively expensive to upgrade, so
I'd rather just live with the DOS version -- it works beautifully.
Also, I don't want to run the PM program on another machine, because
then I'd have to deal with networking in DOS in order to access
files, which I absolutely want to avoid.

Thanks,

--

 ______________________________________
  Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   spam_OUTaekTakeThisOuTspampumpkininc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@124240 by David Kott

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

How about purchasing 4Dos from JP Software at http://www.jpsoft.com/

You can, of course, download and test one of their shells.

-d

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@125449 by Andy Faulkner

picon face
Just a thought, the reasons many programs will not run
under nt is due to it protecting the hardware ports
used by various programmers, I think there's a
installable driver that allows these to work in NT and
makes various ports accessable just as in previous
OS's

If I can remember the name of the file u want I will
email the details.




--- "Andrew E. Kalman" <.....aekKILLspamspam@spam@PUMPKININC.COM> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

=====

Andy Faulkner .....andyf97KILLspamspam.....yahoo.com
Pyrosync International http://www.pyrosync.co.uk

Tel +44 778 896  6087.....................UK Dial 0778 896 6087

Fax +44 870 132 3275.....................UK Dial 0870 132 3275
http://www.event-supplies.co.uk http://www.spectacular-fireworks.co.uk


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@134306 by Andrew E. Kalman

flavicon
face
>Just a thought, the reasons many programs will not run
>under nt is due to it protecting the hardware ports
>used by various programmers, I think there's a
>installable driver that allows these to work in NT and
>makes various ports accessable just as in previous
>OS's
>
>If I can remember the name of the file u want I will
>email the details.


yes, that's the stuff I recently discovered on Microchip's Forums
that will allow me to run the PICMASTER -- yeah!

But my PM program doesn't use any ports (well, it does need a mouse).
It's the memory access that I think will cause problems.
--

 ______________________________________
  Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   EraseMEaekspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpumpkininc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@141414 by Barry Gershenfeld

picon face
>Is there any way to run DOS PM programs on a Win2000 machine?
>
>The PM program in question is prohibitively expensive to upgrade,
>  ______________________________________
>   Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   aekspamspam_OUTpumpkininc.com

I wonder if VMWARE would work here.  It creates a virtual
computer in a window.  You can even install Linux into it.
You would just install your old DOS into it and take it
from there. It uses a virtual disk drive that's just a
big file on your host operating system.

Barry

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@143121 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Networking in dos is actually /very/ easy to do.  I have a floppy with the
three microsoft program that allow you to log onto and share resources
with other micosoft computers (be they dos, windows, etc).  There is also
a web tutorial on how to set it up.  I had mine going in under an hour,
sharing it's own drives and printer, as well as accessing and mapping
other computer's drives and printers.

I used this for a very long time as a stand alone print server and file
repository on an old headless(monitorless) system.

You may want to look into virtual machines as well.  You can run VMware,
for instance, and run a virtual Dos computer under windows, which should
also solve your problem.  Look around enough and you should find something
to solve your problem, which ever way you go.

Although you did leave out your reasons for migrating to win2000.  Aside
from stability ;-), what does win2k have that you don't have now (or can't
get) under 98?

-Adam

"Andrew E. Kalman" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@153810 by Bill Kaufman

flavicon
face
From:  Bill Kaufman@MITEL on 12/13/2000 03:37 PM
"Aside from stability ;-), what does win2k have that
you don't have now (or can't get) under 98?"

One word: Security

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\13@154347 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Well, yeah, ok.  You've got me there.

-Adam

Bill Kaufman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\14@120236 by David Dunn

flavicon
face
Win2K supports old FAT16, new FAT32, and NTFS file systems.


David Dunn


On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:08:59 -0700, Andrew E. Kalman wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@120655 by Bill Kaufman

flavicon
face
From:  Bill Kaufman@MITEL on 12/14/2000 12:05 PM
"But isn't Win2k's file system NTFS-based? In which case DOS won't be
able to read it ..."

With W2K, you can format your boot partition with FAT (2GB max.) and W2K will
work fine.
Of course there is no security on a FAT or FAT32 partition.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@120700 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Win2K supports old FAT16, new FAT32, and NTFS file systems.

However I believe the NTFS system is different to that used on NT4. If you try
and have a dual boot NT4/W2K machine, the W2K install screws up the NTFS so NT4
does not read it anymore. I have not tried W2K, so check before you try this if
you want to be able to dual boot or undo the install.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@121928 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>With W2K, you can format your boot partition with FAT (2GB max.)
>and W2K will work fine.
>Of course there is no security on a FAT or FAT32 partition.

Depends what you mean by security. If it is related to people logging on to the
machine then yes I agree with you, but connections across a network can be as
secure as any other non-shared drive. It is only where security on a
subdirectory of a shared drive is a problem that this would become an issue.

If security is a real issue, then important stuff should be kept on a server and
only accessed across a network for this very sort of reason, that it is easier
to guarantee the security of the data.

If a user can backup the data because it is on the machine they can access then
restore it onto another machine where they can organise administrative
privileges means it is not secure.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@125042 by Scott Newell

flavicon
face
>However I believe the NTFS system is different to that used on NT4. If you
try

Yes, it's a later rev of the NTFS spec.


>and have a dual boot NT4/W2K machine, the W2K install screws up the NTFS
so NT4
>does not read it anymore. I have not tried W2K, so check before you try
this if
>you want to be able to dual boot or undo the install.

Not exactly.  There's an NT service pack (4, I think) that will allow 2k
and NT to co-exist.  I'm dual booting 2k and SP4 at the house.  The only
catch is that NT's chkdsk will refuse to mess with the NTFS partition after
the 2k install, since it was created/updated by a later version driver as
part of the 2k install process.

I didn't lose any data on my existing FAT or NTFS partitions, and I still
boot to NT by default.


newell

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@162226 by Chris Carr

flavicon
face
>
> >Although you did leave out your reasons for migrating to win2000.  Aside
> >from stability ;-), what does win2k have that you don't have now (or
can't
> >get) under 98?
>
> Stability is the driving force -- way too many crashes, especially in
MPLAB.
>
> One drawback of Win2K that Win98 doesn't have is that if you run Dual
> Head or Twin View display adapters, both screens must run at the same
> resolution ... bummer.
> --
Oh, Wonderful, What prawn at Micro$oft thought that was an enhancement.
Presumably that also applies to more than 2 displays on one machine.
What Display Adapter are you using Andrew, or is this Generic ?

regards

Chris

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@170156 by Andrew E. Kalman

flavicon
face
Re:

>
>  > One drawback of Win2K that Win98 doesn't have is that if you run Dual
>>  Head or Twin View display adapters, both screens must run at the same
>>  resolution ... bummer.
>>  --
>Oh, Wonderful, What prawn at Micro$oft thought that was an enhancement.
>Presumably that also applies to more than 2 displays on one machine.
>What Display Adapter are you using Andrew, or is this Generic ?

I'm not that far along ... I just found that info when comparing
Matrox Dual Head to nVidia Twin View adapters. I _think_ it's true
for multiple adapters, too, but I'm not sure.

--

 ______________________________________
  Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   RemoveMEaekTakeThisOuTspampumpkininc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@173128 by Chris Carr

flavicon
face
> >
> >  > One drawback of Win2K that Win98 doesn't have is that if you run Dual
> >>  Head or Twin View display adapters, both screens must run at the same
> >>  resolution ... bummer.
> >>  --
> >Oh, Wonderful, What prawn at Micro$oft thought that was an enhancement.
> >Presumably that also applies to more than 2 displays on one machine.
> >What Display Adapter are you using Andrew, or is this Generic ?
>
> I'm not that far along ... I just found that info when comparing
> Matrox Dual Head to nVidia Twin View adapters. I _think_ it's true
> for multiple adapters, too, but I'm not sure.
>
Guess who's using Matrox G400 Dual Head and has just had a look at their FAQ
. Now the question is how does this affect other Display Adapters.

Thanks for the alert Andrew without it I could have found myself in deep
dodo, much as I did this week with 45GB Hard Disk Drives.....but that is
another Saga.

Regards
Chris

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@173330 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
>> One drawback of Win2K that Win98 doesn't have is that if you
>> run Dual Head or Twin View display adapters, both screens must
>> run at the same resolution ... bummer.

This isn't true, in general, for Windows-2000.

> I just found that info when comparing Matrox Dual Head to
> nVidia Twin View adapters. I _think_ it's true for multiple
> adapters, too, but I'm not sure.

Maybe it's a restriction of the specific video card(s) or
their drivers.

I checked a co-worker's system.  It's running Windows-2000
version 5.0.2195 with two displays.  Primary display is a
Matrox Millennium G200 AGP at 1280x1024 at 24 bits/pixel.
Secondary display is an S3 ViRGE PCI generating 1024x768
at 16 bits/pixel.  Setup has worked fine for months but it
falls in the "multiple [video] adapters" category.

                                               Lee Jones

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\14@175845 by Chris Carr

flavicon
face
> >> One drawback of Win2K that Win98 doesn't have is that if you
> >> run Dual Head or Twin View display adapters, both screens must
> >> run at the same resolution ... bummer.
>
> This isn't true, in general, for Windows-2000.
>
> > I just found that info when comparing Matrox Dual Head to
> > nVidia Twin View adapters. I _think_ it's true for multiple
> > adapters, too, but I'm not sure.
>
> Maybe it's a restriction of the specific video card(s) or
> their drivers.
>
> I checked a co-worker's system.  It's running Windows-2000
> version 5.0.2195 with two displays.  Primary display is a
> Matrox Millennium G200 AGP at 1280x1024 at 24 bits/pixel.
> Secondary display is an S3 ViRGE PCI generating 1024x768
> at 16 bits/pixel.  Setup has worked fine for months but it
> falls in the "multiple [video] adapters" category.
>
Thanks for the Info Lee, looks like its the drivers for the Dual Head Cards.
Would it be too much to ask if anyone running more than 2 display's has
successfully "upgraded" to Win 2000

Regards
Chris

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\15@080931 by miked

flavicon
face
> I don't know about Win2000, but I've heard than WinMe does _not_ allow
> 'restart in DOS mode'.
>
Or boot in DOS (F8 key). But I've seen a hack already to get it into DOS
mode. So apparently DOS is still underneath, but hidden.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...