Will PBDOS-compiled programs work under Windows XP?

[John Lee]

Tom,
I found PB35 with ASM(&H5701) can change the Date/Time under XP

Regards

------------------

[David J Walker]

Dont think so, Tom.

Happens on a wide range of stuff. I think its probably the compiler (QB7).
Personally, I dont believe in internal modems anyway. A couple of years ago, we had 18 customer's machines fried by a lightning strike. Only one of them had an external modem. A number of external modems got fried, but the machines survived. In any case, external modems just work, & I've had hours of fun setting up internals ("Windows can set your modem up on LPT1:". Yeah, right!).

------------------

[Tom Hanlin]

John, most "DOS commands" in a DOS box are actually implemented in 32-bit
Windows code, giving the command shell capabilities that may not be
available to DOS programs.

David, something specific to your local machines or devices, perhaps...
I've never had a problem running DOS comm applications under any Windows
operating system. Could well be a problem with cheap "Winmodems", which
are designed specifically to rely on Windows...


------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

[David J Walker]

A curious difference between W95/98/ME & Win NT/2K running a DOS app. is that the following snippet (actually QB7)

f% = FREEFILE
cp$ = "COM2:2400,N,8,1,DS0"
OPEN cp$ FOR OUTPUT AS #f%
PRINT #f%, "ATDT" + dial$

does not work in W95/98/ME, but works OK in Win NT/2K, whereas the HASP in the parallel port works OK in W95/98/ME, but requires a patch (from Aladdin) to work in Win NT/2K.


------------------

[John Lee]

Tom,
Thank you for the reply. One thing I don't understand is it works
under DOS commands in the BOX.

Regards

------------------

[Tom Hanlin]

John, I'm not sure that's a "bug" so much as a "feature": sounds like
Microsoft decided that DOS time/date handling should be local to the
DOS box and not affect the real clock. We'll have to look into it,
though.

BTW, you can edit your messages after you post them. Just click the
little pencil-and-paper icon above the message.

------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

[Mike Luther]

Posted in an OS/2 Usegroup today should help answer this:

***************

From: "Martin Nisshagen" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows XP
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:29:56 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>


"scott s." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
: In message <[email protected]> - "Michael Iwaki"
: <[email protected]> writes:
: |
: |Excuse me, but what added features or improvements does XP have over the
: |previous Windows: Win2000, WinNT4, WinMe? What's the big deal with XP?

[ As usually I don't if I'm "allowed" to answer OT questions like these,
but... ]

: It appears to me that XP is essentially a bug update to Win2k that also

I would say that it's currently the opposite. W2K with SP2 is really stable and
very bug free, but even as much as I like XP it's a new system who probably
hasn't got as many bugs out (yet with no service pack released) as W2K.

I would say that (if we must be as simplified as this) that WXP is a feature
update to W2K (even if has got some performance and smaller kernel updates as
well).

: includes the ability to run Win9x apps as well. Which is to say, the

Yes, it's got a compatibility databade that can fool many badly written (as
normally Win32 applications for W95 should run on the Win32 subsystem on the NT
kernel based systems as well) to run on WXP.

: base OS is about the level of maybe Warp 3. But getting rid of the 9x

The base OS level is about the same as W2K (with some smaller enhancements) and
many new features (including the new compatibility system).

: code base is a big step forward for MS. Had they not decided to stick
: it to IBM, they could have had that with OS/2 2.0. I don't know if XP

They actually had that also with NT 3.1 in 1993 as well, but I fully agree with
you that it's good that they finally has killed off their bad old
MS-DOS/Win3.x/9x/ME line of systems, as also home users will benefit from not
having such a old patched and poorly designed OS foundation.

: can run either a DOS box or Win31 apps, if that even matters anymore.

The answer is actually both yes and no.

Yes, if you talk about WXP running on Intel x86 systems (IA 32).

No, if you talk about WXP running on Intel IPF systems (IA 64).

Best regards,

m a r t i n | n

--
Martin Nisshagen
[email protected] http://communities.msn.com/wxp


************

Please don't shoot the messenger(s)..




------------------
Mike Luther
[email protected]

[John Lee]

I am sorry that I spell Lance's name in "Lence"
Regards

------------------

[John Lee]

Lence,
My testing for the XP Home only for few hours.
I turn on the computer and click "START", "RUN", type "COMMAND"
then install the PB35, run some old PB35 sofwares.
So far I cannot get a full screen, only 1/3 screen.
As for the TIME$ and DATE$, I think I should give more details:
from the PB35 IDE, I type <TIME$="13:35" rint time$> then hit <RUN>
it prints out <13:35>, but the computer clock does not change.
when in DOS command, I type time, then enter <13:35>. It changes.
Same with the date but the time is obvious because on the right corner.
Other OS the computer clock changes soon as I run <TIME$="13:35">.

I don't know it needs so many settings to run the PB35 under XP HOME.
All I heard it is 99% OK to run DOS program under XP.
I still cannot get a full screen for DOS but will continue to test.

Regards

------------------


[This message has been edited by John Lee (edited October 18, 2001).]

[Lance Edmonds]

I've personally not used XP yet, but these are pretty much the same questions that get raised with 2K, so I'll suggest the 2K adjustments which should work for you too.

Enumeration for the DOS box has only one M, AUTOEXACT.BAT and
CONFIG.SYS file size zero and no COMMAND.COM.

It is probably using CMD.EXE (the 32-bit NT command-interpreter) rather than the old 16-bit COMMAND.COM. DOS configuration is probably done through the AUTOEXEC.NT and CONFIG.NT files in the SYSTEM32 folder. See my next reply below.

> PBDOS runs OK if you don't use EMS, <fre(-11)> returns zero.

Create a shortcut to CMD.EXE or PB.EXE and then select the Properties menu, MEMORY. Set up EMS to 16Mb, ditto for XMS.
Also, you can select the "Advanced" button to specify alternative CONFIG.NT and AUTOEXEC.NT files.

If it is like 2K, you can REM out some of the entries in these two .NT files and gain conventional memory for the sake of CDROM, DPMI and Network redirector support, etc.

> but TIME$ and DATE$ not working under PB35 (works under DOS)

Thats interesting... what "exactly" happens?

Noone else who has been using XP during the beta cycle has reported this (I know quite a few folks using XP with PB/DOS). In fact, all reports I've have had have been that PB/DOS works 100% OK.

> No improvement in speed compared with WinME.

I guess it depends on what you are doing with it, and whether your "benchmark" was set up in an pure "apples with apples" test, not just a subjective "it seems the same speed" test.

However, since DOS runs in an emulated mode (ala, NTVDM), I would hazard a guess that that they have no reason to make it go faster, barring relative CPU speed enhancements. However, DOS in 2k and XP should be running in preemptive multi-tasking mode too, so DOS app's will cede CPU time easily.

Anyone else have some real-life experiences to share? I'm interested in the TIME$/DATE$ aspect here...

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[John Lee]

Hi,
Just bought a computer preloaded XP Home and play for a while.
Enumeration for the DOS box has only one M, AUTOEXACT.BAT and
CONFIG.SYS file size zero and no COMMAND.COM.
> PBDOS runs OK if you don't use EMS, <fre(-11)> returns zero.
> but TIME$ and DATE$ not working under PB35 (works under DOS)
> No improvement in speed compared with WinME.

Regards

------------------

If all else fails...there is Bochs
http://bochs.sourceforge.net/



Amos

------------------
Amos

[Tom Hanlin]

Since Windows XP hasn't been released yet, it is not possible to be 100% certain. That aside, as Eric notes, XP is based on the Windows NT / Windows 2000 code. It is reasonable to expect that any DOS programs that run under NT or Win2k will run under XP. Of course, Microsoft is wonderful if you like surprises...

It depends most on the hardware manipulation you do, if any. Some techniques that were fine under plain DOS won't work with various of the Windows "DOS boxes". Aside from that consideration, your PB/DOS programs have a good 99.99% chance of working fine under XP.

------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

[Eric Pearson]

Windows XP uses the NT/2000 console subsystem, not the unstable 9x/ME "conagent" system. It's much better than 9x/ME.

-- Eric


------------------
Perfect Sync Development Tools
Perfect Sync Web Site
Contact Us: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

I don't see why not....Windows XP most likely uses the same
"DOS Virtual Machine" that Windows 2000 and ME use. This means
that aside from anything that might be hardware intensive, your
executables should run just fine.

If anyone has more info on this, like encountering a bug under
this "VM", please let us know about it.

Amos

------------------
Amos

[Paul Panks]

Is this 100% certain, because I'm thinking of upgrading from Windows Me to Windows XP?

Paul


------------------
Few cats act their age, while
most just cough up furballs.