Post by thread:[PICLIST] [OT] DOS PM program and Win2000 Pro?

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

{Quote hidden}> 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? > 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

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" <.....aekKILLspam@spam@PUMPKININC.COM> wrote: {Quote hidden}> 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. aekKILLspampumpkininc.com > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must > start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other > [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > ===== Andy Faulkner .....andyf97KILLspam.....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

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

>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. aekspam_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

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

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}>Re: > >>If you're willing to do the equivilent of "restart in DOS mode" anyway, >>why not just get freedos, or a pre-w2k version of windows dos on a floppy >>and reboot from the floppy as necessary? You should still have access to >>the filesystem (as much as you would from a w98 startup disk, anyway.) > > >But isn't Win2k's file system NTFS-based? In which case DOS won't be >able to read it ... >-- > > ______________________________________ > Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D. KILLspamaekKILLspampumpkininc.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 > > -- 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

>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

>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

> > >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

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. RemoveMEaekTakeThisOuTpumpkininc.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

> > > > > 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

>> 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

> >> 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