ppgrainbow
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ppgrainbow
-
-
Loosely, something *like* this?:
https://www.cartft.com/catalog/il/1587
t seems like the good guys
over there have drivers for 9x/Me and NT 4.00 too (at least for some TFT displays) :https://www.cartft.com/support/drivers/TFT/
jaclaz
Thank you for the suggestion! I'll look up on eBay to see what I can find.
I found that MIMO-based monitors such as the Mimo TOUCH 2 have touchscreen support for Windows XP and later as well as 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and up.
0 -
I'm looking for a USB-powered touchscreen monitor that will fit within the $100 to $200 budget this Christmas so that I can use it as a second monitor.
Can you try to find me a good product that will still provide driver support under Windows Vista 64-bit? I know that touchscreen support was not introduced until the release of Windows 7 in late 2009. However, a handful of vendors did provide touchscreen driver support for Windows XP and even Windows Vista.
If I can't find one, I could end up sticking with a USB-powered monitor.0 -
It should work with any IO.SYS 7 or unpacked IO.SYS 8. So Windows 95 and 98FE should be covered.
Thanks for telling me.
0 -
The link to the Patch is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/page-7
It appears that the file I attached PATCHPAR.ZIP is no longer available.
Thank you for the link. I don't know if the patched IO.SYS works in Windows 98 (original release), Windows 95 or even MS-DOS. As far as I know these OSes that I've mentioned haven't been tested it might not work at all.
Since I'm running MS-DOS, I might want to play safe and back up the hard disk images just in case massive data corruption occurs.
0 -
The downside is that MS-DOS, OS/2 and Windows 9x/Me have a bug where, if the last logical partition in the extended partition is not a recognised file system type and multiple visible primary FAT-formatted partitions exist, it will use the last logical partition as a FAT-formatted one in place of the next primary partition. These OSes will think that the size of the partition is that of the primary partition and consequently, data corruption will occur!
It doesn't use the logical partition as a FAT partition. It adds the offsets of the partitions together
to produce an entirely spurious partition.
This bug is well known. I posted a fix on this forum for it years ago.
Can I have a link to the fix on the forum that you posted a long time ago?
0 -
According to this forum thread, hard disks can have up to four primary partitions, or three partitions and one extended partition. Certain OSes such as MS-DOS, Windows 9x/Me and OS/2 do not recognise more than one primary partition.
I don't know about OS/2 but the others do recognize more than one Primary Partition.
Microsoft even published a specific sequence they use for enumerating them as follows:
1. Active Primary Partition on each Drive.
2. All Logical Partitions in an Extended Partition on each Drive in succession.
3. All Inactive Primary Partitions on each Drive in succession.
I read up on this FAQ regarding XOSL as the boot manager:
http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/faqhow/faq.html
1. MS-DOS 3.3 to 6.22 canoot be installed nor run on a logical partition and cannot use more than one primary partition.
2. Caldera DR-DOS 7.03 can use more than one primary partition and can be installed on a logical partition, but cannot boot from it.
3. Other operating systems such as Windows 95, 98 and ME can boot from a logical partition, but cannot directly run from a logical partition without having to use a bootloader to tell where Windows 9x/Me is installed.
4. Windows NT 4.0, which does not support hard disks larger than 8,025 MB on the primary IDE hard drive, cannot be directly installed on the logical partition. The same applies for Windows 2000. However, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 both can run from a logical partition and use more than one primary partition.
The downside is that MS-DOS, OS/2 and Windows 9x/Me have a bug where, if the last logical partition in the extended partition is not a recognised file system type and multiple visible primary FAT-formatted partitions exist, it will use the last logical partition as a FAT-formatted one in place of the next primary partition. These OSes will think that the size of the partition is that of the primary partition and consequently, data corruption will occur!
Therefore, I got MS-DOS 6.22, OS/2 Warp 4, Windows 95B, FreeDOS FAT32 maintenance partition to install Puppy Linux as well as disk images that are used for GRUB4DOS and **** Small Linux in a multi-boot GRUB4DOS configuration successfully without any major problems. With the ONTRACKD.SYS BDO in the CONFIG.SYS, MS-DOS can recongise the first three FAT-formatted logical partitions where OS/2 is installed.
0 -
Presumably. It is part of the Patches that I have made to IO.SYS for my TeraByte Plus Package.If there is a patch that will allow DOS to see more than one Extended Partition, can it be done using the DEBUG tool?
It is intended for use with my RFDISK Multi-Boot Partiting Tool.
You don't need more than one Extended Partition to have an unlimited number of Logical
Partitions. I don't know which Partitioning tools would even allow more than one.
Partitioning tools that will allow more than one primary partition would be BootIT NG, DFSee and GParted to name a few.
As for the patches for the IO.SYS, it's not free, I don't think.
According to this forum thread, hard disks can have up to four primary partitions, or three partitions and one extended partition. Certain OSes such as MS-DOS, Windows 9x/Me and OS/2 do not recognise more than one primary partition.
0 -
As far as I can tell ONTRACKD.SYS is a Block Device Driver not a DDO. It translates Sector Requests to Extended INT 13 Calls.
It would probably need a DDO as well if the BIOS does not support INT 13 Extensions.
EZ-DRIVE is a DDO. It would be of little use to you.
You can create more than 3 Logical Partitions. The limit of 4 applies to the number of Primary and Extended Partitions.
One Extended Partition can contain an unlimited number of Logical Partitions. Standard DOS only recognizes one Extended Partition per Drive.
FDISK allows one Primary and One Extended Partition. My RFDISK allows more. I have a Patch that allows DOS to see more than one Extended Partition as well.
That's good to hear that. Although ONTRACKD.SYS is a Block Device Driver (BDD) or better known as a BIOS Overlay Driver that supports Extended INT 13 calls overcoming the 8,025 MB limit: http://www.bandwidthco.com/whitepapers/datarecovery/hdd/barriers/Breaking%20the%208.4%20GB%20Barrier.pdf
EZ-Drive would be little use, because it doesn't support hard disk and other media beyond the 8,025 MB (1,023 cylinder) barrier.
If there is a patch that will allow DOS to see more than one Extended Partition, can it be done using the DEBUG tool?
0 -
That's what I've been thinking. However, Internet Explorer 6 is not totally unusable. There are still other websites that users can visit.
It seems that Microsoft made a poor choice when it released IE6 on 2001. I think that the main reason why so many websites fail to load is also the removal of RC4 support. This is not an issue under Firefox or Seamonkey and it's even partially an issue under older versions of Netscape and Opera.
0 -
The Ontrack DDO is the one that gave DDOs a bad name. It offset all Disk accesses making the Drive unreadable unless you booted through it. Windows 9x has specific code to work with Ontrack. Other DDOs, such as EZ-DRIVE and my BOOTMAN series, do not offset Disk Accesses so no Reformatting is required.
I wrote my DDO a long time ago so it was a bit crude. It would have required rebuilding the Partitions above 8GB.
It is not be hard to write a Partition Driver that can mount Partitions above the 8GB limit. I assume Ontrack did.
Despite the fact that Ontrack wrote its Dynamic Drive Overlay utility, it was the only utility that overcame the 8,025 MB limit under standalone MS-DOS. I was lucky to use the ONTRACKD.SYS driver to load in the CONFIG.SYS, rather than taking the risk of making the entire drive unreadable unless it was booted though it.
EZ-Drive is a utility that actually overcame the 504 MB limit in BIOSes from the early 1990s.
And in regards to creating anymore logical drives, I don't think that I will be able to create anymore partitions inside in the hard disk. Partitioning utilities limit to no more than four partitions (one primary partition and three logical drives per disk). If I wanted to create a fourth logical drive or a second primary partition, a Extended Master Boot Record (EMBR or Extended MBR) would need to be created.
0 -
I did it with a Drive Splitting DDO but that required very specific Partitioning to work.
Another option would be to use the Ontrack DDO utilities. Unfortunately, both of these DDO partitioning utilities will require destructive reformatting which is something that I wouldn't want to go through.
Oh wait. A better solution was to load the Ontrack Disk Manager 9.50 ONTRACKD.SYS driver in the CONFIG.SYS!
This will correctly recognise hard disk partitions over 8,025 MB. The maximum size that the Ontrack Disk Manager utility will accept is 32,768 MB! That is enough for MS-DOS 5.0 to 6.22 to recognise logical hard disk partitions up to drive R. ONTRACKD.SYS uses only 3.2 KB of base memory. Have a look:
Has anyone tested the creation of hard disks by splitting in to 2 GB logical drives on a 32 GB hard disk image using the ONTRACKD.SYS driver loaded?
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft imposed the 8,025 MB limit as hard disks and other media this large were not available at the time when MS-DOS 5.0 through 6.22 came out between the 1991 to 1994 period. Overcoming the 8,025 MB limit under these stand alone versions of MS-DOS would require architectural changes that will never be supported.
0 -
You might remember my remarkable post regarding testing MS-DOS limitations from almost three years ago and now I'm realising it.
Okay, I'm currently running MS-DOS 6.22 triple booting with OS/2 Warp 4 and Windows 95B under GRUB4DOS 0.4.6a 2015-09-15.
I'm running Virtual PC 2007 with three 16 GB hard disk images and 256 MB of system memory and have split three of the drives into four partitions. Looking at the Disk Management utility:1. The areas where it is shaded in dark blue are primary partitions. MS-DOS 6.22 is occupying the first 2 GB on each drive with drive letters C, D and E.
2. The areas where it has a dark green border are extended partitions. 14 GB of disk space on each of the three drives are used as a extended partition.
3. The extended partition on each of the three drives are split into three logical drives. The logical drives are shaded in blue.
4. My OS/2 Warp 4 installation has three 2 GB FAT formatted drives (drives F, I and K mapped as C, D and E) and one 8 GB HPFS formatted partition (drive M mapped as drive F).
5. My Windows 95B installation has three 4 GB FAT32 formatted drive (drives G, J and L mapped as C, D and E).
6. Drive H is a hidden FAT32 formatted drive that will be used as storage. The other 8 GB partition below it will be a Linux formatted partition as I'm going to install DSL 4.4.10 soon.
The only problem is that MS-DOS 6.22 lacks INT 13h support which means that it cannot support hard disks larger than 8,025 MB (1,023 cylinders, 255 heads and 63 sectors per track) which means that if the size of the extended partition is over 5,977 MB, MS-DOS will not be able to access any of the three logical drives on each disk at all.
Are there any hacks or wokrarounds to overcome the 8,025 MB limit without having to mess-up the GRUB4DOS bootloader?0 -
If we can identify which DLL is providing the SSL3 support, we might be able to downgrade it with the one from IE5.5.
Even better might be to upgrade it with an IE7 or 8 file that supports TLS.
Good idea. If you have found which DLL that provided SSL v3 support and caused websites to not function, please let me know.
I'm also wondering if debugging will help identify which DLL has been providing SSL v3 support with no proper way to disable it.
0 -
I don't believe there is a way to force IE 6 to IE 5 compatibility mode. You can try messing about with the settings and/or the registry.
I wouldn't bother; IE 6 is basically the same as IE 5. If anything IE 6 is a bit more unreliable these days. I don't run IE 6 on any of my machines. IE 5.0 is very stable and IE 5.5 adds nice features like print preview and better CSS support.
Some websites crash immediately when you try to open them in IE6, but not in IE 5. I don't know if it is deliberate by web designers, or an inherent flaw within the IE 6 web browser.
That's what I've been seeing.
With so many websites removing SSL v3 support, IE6 could soon be rendered unusable. I'm wondering if there is a way to disable SSL v3 support in the registry or not...
0 -
I have noticed this phenomenon on machines running Internet Explorer 6 as well.
The ideas that explain this are:
1) The POODLE attack in 2014 is unique to SSL 3.0. This prompted servers to block browsers specifically using SSL 3.0 (not block SSL 2.0). Browsers with only SSL 3.0 enabled will fail to connect to HTTPS unless you select TLS instead.
2) Internet Explorer 6 uses SSL 3.0 by default but Internet Explorer 5.5 and earlier use SSL 2.0 by default.
3) Hence, older browsers can access SSL sites because they are using SSL 2.0, not the banned SSL 3.0.
I can still access my college's Banner system using Internet Explorer 5.0 under Windows 98!
That's what I've been thinking. The POODLE vulnerability caused servers to block SSL v3.0. Internet Explorer 6 uses SSL v3.0. I'm guessing that there could also be a problem with the security certificates.
Simply unchecking SSL v3.0 didn't do any good to access the Google webpage at all. I've heard that killing SSL v3.0 support broke support for most webpages running under Internet Explorer 6.
Is there a way to possibly to make IE6 use only SSL v2.0 to get around the website blockage issue running when under Windows NT 4.0 SP6, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000 and Windows XP?
0 -
Google and Wikipedia are completely separate issues. Unfortunately, I don't understand what either of those issues is, only that they are unrelated.
On my Win98se machine, Google works in both IE5 and FF2.
Wikipedia doesn't work in IE5 and just once per session in FF2.
Here's a table of SSL-related User Agent Capabilities by browser: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/clients.html
Click "Test Your Browser" to perform a detailed SSL test.
Another tester: https://www.howsmyssl.com/
According to the Qualys SSL Labs, I found that neither Internet Explorer 6 nor Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP are capable off supporting TLS 1.2, SNI, Forward Secrecy, Stapling and Session Tickets...that means no SSL-related User Agent capabilities.
Ironically, if I set the User Agent on the SeaMonkey browser to Internet Explorer 6, both the Google and Wikipedia are accessible.
Under NT 4.0 SP6 running IE6 SP1, I could neither access howsmyssl.com nor ssllabs.com at all.
Sounds to be that something could be totally wrong with the SSL capabilities under Windows NT 4.0.
0 -
Hello! I apologise if I might have posted in the wrong forum, but I have a problem here.
For some reason, when attempting to access the Google homepage on Internet Explorer 6 SP1 under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, I get a page not found error:
On a Windows 95 machine running Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2, I can access Google just fine:
By the way, can anyone also try to access the Wikipedia webpage under IE5 or IE6 when running under Windows 9x, ME, Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000? This was tested using the Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 virtual machines running under Microsoft Virtual PC 2007.What can be done to access Google and Wikipedia under IE6 and other old browsers, btw?
0 -
I haven't posted here in the MSFN forums for a while, but I have a problem here.
I updated to VMware Player 6.0.7 on my Windows Vista host machine and for some reason, I can't get the sound to work on any of my guest OSes (Windows NT 3.51, Windows 95 and Windows 2000) that requires the legacy Sound Blaster 16 emulated sound card.
For example, I've been running Windows NT 3.51 SP5 as a guest OS and although, the OS installs the Sound Blaster 16 emulated card, it doesn't work at all!
Edit: Nevermind! I solved the problem. I had to uninstall r277 of the Realtek High Definition Audio drivers and revert to the audio drivers that came with my ASUS motherboard.The end result is that the sound in VMware now works!
Incase, I ever decide to update VMware Player or reinstall it, I may have to reinstall the audio drivers again.
0 -
I'm running the Windows 95 Virtual PC VM right now. I opened up Microsoft Paint and I'm currently running Process Explorer v9.25. Here's are the following processes for MS-Paint (thanks to VPC Additions):
Process: MSPAINT.EXE PID: FFFD6E59List of DLLs used for Microsoft Paint:
Name Version Base Size Date
ADVAPI32.DLL 4.71.0118.0000 0xBFED0000 0x0000E000 1999/3/16 0:00
COMCTL32.DLL 5.81.4807.2300 0xBFB70000 0x0008E000 2001/7/23 0:00
COMDLG32.DLL 4.00.0000.0951 0x7FEB0000 0x0001B000 1995/12/31 9:50
GDI32.DLL 4.00.0000.0952 0xBFF20000 0x00025000 2000/3/2 14:20
KERNEL32.DLL 4.00.0000.0951 0xBFF70000 0x00068000 1996/2/2 9:51
MFC42.DLL 6.00.8665.0000 0x5F400000 0x000F2000 2000/2/11 16:58
MPR.DLL 4.00.0000.0950 0x7FD40000 0x0000F000 1995/7/11 9:50
MSH_ZWF.DLL 4.00.0657.0000 0x61220000 0x0000B000 2001/5/9 19:00
MSNET32.DLL 4.00.0000.0956 0x7F300000 0x00014000 1999/11/11 11:52
MSPAINT.EXE 5.00.1523.0001 0x01000000 0x00052000 1997/5/16 8:49
MSSHRUI.DLL 4.00.0000.0950 0x7F890000 0x00017000 1995/7/11 9:50
MSVCRT.DLL 6.00.8797.0000 0x78000000 0x00044000 2000/3/7 15:22
MSWHEEL.DLL 4.00.0657.0000 0x61230000 0x00007000 2001/5/9 19:00
OLE32.DLL 4.71.3328.0000 0x65F00000 0x000C2000 1999/3/29 12:36
RPCRT4.DLL 4.71.3328.0000 0x70100000 0x00053000 1999/3/29 12:36
SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3612.1700 0x70980000 0x00156000 1999/3/16 4:43
SHLWAPI.DLL 5.50.4807.2300 0x70BD0000 0x0004C000 2001/7/23 0:00
SVRAPI.DLL 4.00.0000.0950 0x7F8C0000 0x00009000 1995/7/11 9:50
USER32.DLL 4.00.0000.0950 0xBFF60000 0x0000F000 1995/7/11 9:50
WINSPOOL.DRV 4.00.0000.0950 0x7FEF0000 0x00009000 1995/7/11 9:50List of Handles need in Microsoft Paint:
Type Name Handle Access Object Address
Event 0x10 0x00100000 0x81629F2C
Event 0x12 0x00100000 0x81629FB4
MappedFile rpcrt4sharedmem 0x11 0x00000000 0xC1086E5C
MappedFile fileAllocatorMutex 0xA 0x00000000 0xC1085F18
MappedFile DCOMSharedGlobals12321 0xD 0x00000000 0xC1085F74
MappedFile fileAllocatorMutex 0xF 0x00000000 0xC1085F18
Mutex MPRMutex 0x13 0x00100000 0x81605818
Mutex 0x14 0x00100000 0x8162A190
Mutex svrapi 0x15 0x00100000 0x8161A824
Mutex OLESCMLOCKMUTEX 0x2 0x00100000 0x8160F870
Mutex OleCoSharedStateMtx 0x3 0x00100000 0x8160F9E8
Mutex OLESCMSRVREGLISTMUTEX 0x4 0x00100000 0x8160FA2C
Mutex OLESCMGETHANDLEMUTEX 0x5 0x00100000 0x8160FA74
Mutex OLESCMROTMUTEX 0x6 0x00100000 0x8160FABC
Mutex OleDfSharedMemoryMutex 0x7 0x00100000 0x8160FB30
Mutex ScmWIPMutex 0x8 0x00100000 0x8160FC2C
Mutex WHEEL_FEATURES_MUTEX 0xB 0x00100000 0x8161D9F8
Mutex ObjectResolverGlobalMutex 0xC 0x00100000 0x8160FCEC
Process MSPAINT.EXE(FFFD6E59) 0x1 0x001F0FFF 0x816279D4
Semaphore DocfileAllocatorMutex 0x9 0x00100000 0x8160FBB8
Semaphore DocfileAllocatorMutex 0xE 0x00100000 0x8160FBB8As for failing to open or save, that's what I'm talking about.
Now as for dependencies and hooks that are required to run the Windows 95 version of Microsoft Paint, do you have any idea what is missing in Windows NT 3.51? I'll edit this if I finally found something.
0 -
One update to mention here.
I never got around updating the Readme.txt file in regards to this guide on installing and updating Win2K Professional. Once I got it done, I'll place all of the contents in a ISO file.
I may have to update the components in any event that Microsoft ed-commissions the Windows Update website in the foreseeable future.
0 -
Thanks
Yep, I believe that it is something that one should be aware of, but unlikely to be an issue in "real life" (when third party software is involved), but if you simply run on your Vista drive:
dir /aL /s C:\>C:\junctions.lst
you should have the list of everything that is not a "real" file or folder, and then be able to take (if needed and possible) the additional steps/workaround/fixes required when/if they are affected by the moving of the installed programs.
As a side note, and JFYI, installing Vista or 7 on FAT32 experiments
http://reboot.pro/topic/19643-winsxs-hardlinked-files/
jaclaz
Thank you so much for the information. I'm gonna be looking into the WinSxS hardlinked files.
So far, I moved my games onto the second hard drive and they all run well without any major problems.
0 -
You're referring to this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140103015408/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/148494
PBRUSH.EXE "calls" MSPAINT.EXE in 95/NT4.
Here's a link to Win95/NT MSPAINT (Paint95).
http://www.computerhope.com/download/window95.htm
Whether it will run or how to go about installing is another matter, since I haven't researched farther that that.
HTH
edit -
Tested extracted files from Win95 on an NT3.51. Here's the file list necessary.
mfc30.dll
mfcans32.dll
mfco30.dll
mfcuia32.dll
mspaint.cnt
mspaint.exe
mspaint.hlp
msvcrt20.dll
pbrush.exe <-not really needed.
I put the above on a floppy and ran MSPAINT from File Manager.
Seems to work on -any- 32-bit OS.
I have -not tested the PAINT95.EXE one yet.
***edit2 - Yep, it also works. I put it on a DMF (1024 cluster size) and ran MSPAINT (same way).
Thank you for the heads up. I tried putting in the DLLs required and for some reason, the Windows 95 version of Paint still failed to save or open images under Windows NT 3.51.
The same thing applied to the updated files from PAINT95.EXE.
0 -
Windows NT 3.51 Workstation and Server is based on the Windows 3.1 codebase. Certain amounts of software (such as Office 97 and Corel Draw 6) that works under Windows 95, should work under Windows NT 3.51.
The reason why I wanted to use Windows NT 3.51 is that it takes up a lot less disk space and memory than Windows NT 4.0. The only downside is that Windows NT 3.51 is missing certain features that only exist under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95 respectively.
The end goal is to try to get remaining features from Windows 95/NT 4.0 Paint working under Windows NT 3.51. Here's a brief run down:
1. With Microsoft Paint from Windows 95 / NT 4.0, when you post a screenshot that has the original size of 1024 x 768 and the image attributes in Paint has a fixed image size of 500 x 500, you can have the full image resized. This feature doesn't exist in Windows NT 3.51 and parts of the image is displayed when it is pasted in Paintbrush.
2. You can use the magnifying glass to zoom the image between 100% to as high as 800% for example. Under Windows NT 3.51, you can only use the Zoom In and Zoom Out feature (found in the View menu).
3. The Win95/NT4 Paint included PBRUSH.EXE as a stub. Therefore, it doesn't work at all under NT 3.51.
Also, in NT 3.51, there were two features that were available. They were the Cursor Position feature in the View menu and the Omit Picture Format feature in the Options menu. Some of the features were changed in Windows 95/NT 4.0 respectively.
Here is what both versions of Microsoft Paint look like:
The app on the left is the Windows NT 3.51 version of Paintbrush, the app on the right is the Windows NT 4.0 version of Paint.
I'm wondering if there is a way to import some of the code from Windows NT 3.51 Paintbrush to Windows NT 4.0 Paint to make the features such as saving and opening PaintBrush files work under Windows NT 3.51.
I couldn't read the post because MSFN was down most of the day.
0 -
I'm currently running Windows NT 3.51 Workstation with SP5 installed under VMWare Player. I managed to replace the Windows NT 3.51 Paintbrush with Microsoft Paint from Windows NT 4.0 Workstation SP6.
The good news so far is this: Most of the Microsoft Paint functions work as-is under Windows NT 3.51 as it did with the original version of Paintbrush.
The bad news are the following:
1. In the File section, the Open, Save and Save As... features do not work. To work around this issue, you would have to either exit Microsoft Paint or select "New" to save the image where you will be prompted for a file name and where can you save the image. I have not tested the Save as Wallpaper (Tiled)/(Centered) feature.
2. In the Edit section, the "Copy to..." and "Paste from..." features don't work. You would have to copy the image to another Windows NT 3.51 compatible image editing programme and paste it there.
3. When you select a TrueType or Bitmap font, there is no option to select a font face name and the font size do not show in the Fonts window.
4. In the Options section, the "Get Colors..." and "Save Colors..." features do not work.
How can I get Microsoft Paint from Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 fully working under Windows NT 3.51?1. Would there be a patch or code modification to fix the bugs that I listed above?
2. What files would I need to replace if necessary?
Sorry if I'm failing to provide enough information, but I'm gonna be turning in for the night soon. Would it be good if I can try to provide screenshots to see what I mean by this?0
over there have drivers for 9x/Me and NT 4.00 too 
(at least for some TFT displays) :
Microsoft MS-DOS 6.22 on the HP Pavilion zt1135
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted · Edited by ppgrainbow
Hello!
One of my sisters gave me their old notebook computer for my 40th birthday. It's a HP Pavilion ZT1135.
It has no working built-in networking capabilities and recently, the old hard Toshiba 40 GB IDE hard drive was replaced with a Transcend 8 GB 2.5" PATA SLC Industrial SSD (model number TS8GSSD25-S) as I was previously unable to use it for over a year.
Looking into the information from Navratil System Info, the Transcend 8 GB 2.5" PATA SLC Industrial SSD has a actual fixed disk capacity of 7.45 GB. This drive is limited to 300,000 writes per single level cell memory (512-byte sector) for a total of drive life of writing up to 2.13 PB of data.
Here's what I have installed so far:
1. I managed to install Microsoft MS-DOS 6.22 using the USB 2.0 compatible floppy disk as well as Windows 3.1 without problems and I disabled the Windows swapfile. By disabling the Windows swapfile, you CANNOT install Win32s. I managed to install 4DOS without too much of a problem, but I managed to disable swapfile support also.
The notebook has 256 MB of memory with 248 MB is usable, 8 MB is reserved for video memory. The notebook PC has a integrated S3 Twister 86C380 graphics chip with 7 MB of video memory.
MS-DOS 6.22 can only recognise up to 64 MB of memory and only supports the 16-bit FAT file system which limits the size of the partition to 2 GB (up to 65,505 clusters at 32 KB per cluster and 64 sectors per cluster). Currently, I have the drive split up into four partitions:
2. Drive C: (primary partition): 1,474.47 MB with 49.63 MB (or 3.37%) of disk space used
3. The extended partition occupies a total of 6,141.09 MB. Drives D, E and F all have 2,047.03 MB with drive F using 40.25 MB (or 1.96%) of disk space. Drives D and E have not been used yet.
Overall, out of the total 7,615.56 MB capacity, MS-DOS 6.22 is using only 89.88 MB or just 1.18% of the total disk space. This may sound too much and too good to be true for a tiny 21-year old operating system.
However, MS-DOS 5 through 6.22 alone may not understand how a SSD functions and I have concerns over possible data corruption.
Also, is it possible to use USB support and PCMCIA drivers under MS-DOS and Windows 3.1? The notebook has two PCMCIA slots that were made by ENE Technology Inc. Under Windows 3.1, the OS doesn't even detect the USB floppy drive at all. Windows File Manager displays drives C, D, E, F and X.
Do you have any idea what can be done to reduce data corruption under MS-DOS when run on a SSD? Also, how can I get Windows 3.1 to detect the USB floppy drive when MS-DOS does?