Windows 95 or Windows 98 SE?

[eidenk]

Windows ME runs on top of DOS 8.00. IO.SYS is the DOS kernel (hence, much more than a simple OS loader), and the ME version of IO.SYS contains an embedded HIMEM.SYS, and loads IFSHLP.SYS by itself. That's DOS. It, however, can load Win ME (viz.: VMM.VxD) without ever loading COMMAND.COM. So you can say Win ME runs without the DOS *shell*. That's the main difference it has, when compared to 98SE. HTH.

Well I don't think io.sys is the DOS kernel on top of which ME runs. As you say it has for mission to load vmm.vxd which is THE operating system. Nothing from io.sys remains after VMM has been initialized I think. The fact that io.sys uses embeded DOS technology to load VMM does not mean that VMM relies on any of that code once it has fully loaded and taken over the computer.

[jaclaz]

eidenk,

Let's try this way.

Since the beginning of any dos, COMMAND.COM has been a command interpreter, that you can easily change / substitute.

In the old (up to MS-DOS 6.22) the DOS system files were TWO:

• IO.SYS
  
• MSDOS.SYS
  

Corresponding to the two files of the original PC-DOS:

• IBMBIO.SYS
  
• IBMDOS .SYS
  

Since DOS 7.x the MSDOS.SYS has been "deprived" of the dignity of system file and demoted to a mere "INI settings file".

Everything was embedded in IO.SYS, even the boot splashscreen.

Just for the record remember how:

IO.SYS<-->WIMBOOT.SYS

http://rshweb.com/Win95/win95tips9.htm

In DOS 8.0 even himem.sys has been embedded in IO.SYS.

So, it is correct to say that:

IO.SYS is DOS, since version 7.x or Win95.

jaclaz

Edited May 24, 2009 by jaclaz

[pointertovoid]

My own little messy contribution...

On a 1GHz PIII 128MB, W95, W98se, WMe will all be swift and are all dirt-cheap. Then I would definitely prefer WMe, which is better than 98 in any respect, and does have some advantages over W95b/c: dX9.0c, more drivers, easy Usb, more applications.

W2k is comfortable with a 1GHz PIII but won't boot up and down as quickly as W95-98-Me do. Consider 1min boot time on this configuration instead of 15s. 128MB make it 10% slower than 256MB, and then you'll add applications that eat up Ram. So stay at WMe (or 95b/c) if you're offline and want speed. Online, I feel much more comfortable with W2k: user accounts that don't access Ntfs-protected system folders, still security-maintained OS and IE... Dual-boot Me-2k in an option, I have such a machine, but then you need Fat32 on many volumes, less good.

Wdm drivers were introduced with W95 osr2.1, that is, W95b with Usb.

There is no general rule that a Vxd designed for 98 should run on 95. First, its installer may well refuse it, and even if it installs naturally or artificially, it may well crash the system as many entry points lack on W95.

I increasingly believe that moderators write mistakes deliberately to provoke responses in a thread.

There is no such thing as a general 32GB limit on W95. I know Microsoft have written that in the KB, and a few bits of W95 may not work properly, but these are all started by the user's action and can be replaced by free equivalents. And the 137GB barrier is strictly defined by the Bios and can even be overriden by some drivers (Intel chipset). I could install W95b on a 160GB Raid-0 without any precaution.

If I remember well, the 350MHz limit is for Amd processors only, and a patch exists anyway. I've just installed W95b on a 1400MHz PIII without any patch, by the absolutely standard method.

[submix8c]

<snip> WMe, which is better than 98 in any respect, and does have some advantages over W95b/c: dX9.0c, more drivers, easy Usb, more applications.<endsnip>

Not necessarily true (re 98vsME) -

- dx9.0c - Huh?

- more drivers - Huh?

- easy usb - Huh?

- more applications - Huh?

Don't visit the 98SE forums much, do ya??? Every single thing available to ME is available to 98/98SE (and then some) with the exception of System Restore (adopted by XP and above). Many of these items are also available to '95 and some others to ME as well. (e.g. 48-bit LBA, usb drivers, etc.)

Go browsey-lookey-see...

(Heh... this is getting to be fun I'm sure the '95ers will be coming around real soon! and eidenk...)

[rloew]

Well I don't think io.sys is the DOS kernel on top of which ME runs. As you say it has for mission to load vmm.vxd which is THE operating system. Nothing from io.sys remains after VMM has been initialized I think. The fact that io.sys uses embeded DOS technology to load VMM does not mean that VMM relies on any of that code once it has fully loaded and taken over the computer.

VMM may or may not use any DOS code in a normal configuration but it is capable of using DOS drivers after taking over.

I did the following experiment:

1. Renamed VMM32.VXD to VMM32.EXE

2. Booted Windows ME.

3. When prompted for the Windows loader, I typed DEBUG.EXE

4. Loaded and Installed my NON-XMS 32-Bit RAMDISK from DEBUG.

5. Put a file in the RAMDISK.

6. Exited Debug.

7. Loaded Windows by typing WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32

8. Opened My Computer, then the RAMDISK, and verified that the files were there.

Windows ME does snapshot the DOS code and makes it available for VMs

IO.SYS loads a full DOS Kernel but does not load the COMMAND.COM shell.

You can load the SHELL as follows:

1. Rename VMM32.VXD to VMM32.EXE

2. Create a modified COMMAND.COM called COMMANDX.COM that ignores the boot mode flags.

3. Boot Windows ME.

4. When prompted for the Windows loader, type COMMANDX.COM

If you copy COMMANDX.COM to VMM32.VXD (after renaming the original as above) you will enter the Shell on boot. You can then switch to Windows by running VMM32.EXE.

Technically none of these Operating Systems run "On Top" of DOS. They use their own 32-Bit Code to do as much as possible, only using DOS Code when accessing a Real Mode only Driver or when using a DOS VM.

Edited May 24, 2009 by rloew

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I increasingly believe that moderators write mistakes deliberately to provoke responses in a thread.

Dems fightin' words. Why would we (when most of us clearly have YEARS of experience on you) post false info and endager our reputations?

[JustinStacey.x]

I found out as well since some time that the Sun Java BHO (any version I can recall) for IE was a bugger on my system so that if I upgrade Java I immediately remove this BHO afterwards not to suffer from slowness in opening folders in explorer. It turns out this BHO also hooks into explorer and each time I open a folder it parses a large number of its own keys in the registry, considerably slowing down explorer. Dunno if this is ME specific or not either.

Nope, it's not. I had this on Windows 98SE as well. Thanks for the info.

[eidenk]

My own little messy contribution...

There is no such thing as a general 32GB limit on W95. I know Microsoft have written that in the KB, and a few bits of W95 may not work properly, but these are all started by the user's action and can be replaced by free equivalents. And the 137GB barrier is strictly defined by the Bios and can even be overriden by some drivers (Intel chipset). I could install W95b on a 160GB Raid-0 without any precaution.

The 137GB barrier is very real on many 9x systems because esdi506.pdr, the FAT32 filesystem driver, has a bug in it. If you attempt to write above 137GB on an unpatched system you'll crush the data at the beginning of the disk.

As for the 32GB barrier in Win95 I dunno because I am not knowledgeable enough with 95 but BenoitRen will be able to tell us probably if you are right or wrong.

[eidenk]

eidenk,

Let's try this way.

...

None of that proves ME runs on top of DOS.

To me it's just like hearing something like, not saying this just for you, look that diesel engine, it runs on electricity because it use an electrical starter.

Edited May 25, 2009 by eidenk

[eidenk]

I found out as well since some time that the Sun Java BHO (any version I can recall) for IE was a bugger on my system so that if I upgrade Java I immediately remove this BHO afterwards not to suffer from slowness in opening folders in explorer. It turns out this BHO also hooks into explorer and each time I open a folder it parses a large number of its own keys in the registry, considerably slowing down explorer. Dunno if this is ME specific or not either.

Nope, it's not. I had this on Windows 98SE as well. Thanks for the info.

Glad you've enjoyed the scoop.

[rloew]

None of that proves ME runs on top of DOS.

This discussion about who is on top of whom isn't going anywhere. As I stated before, Windows bootstraps itself using DOS and can then work pretty much on it's own. Eidenk's engine analogy is valid. Of course a diesel engine without a starter is pretty much useless.

The point is that Windows 95, 98 and ME are all the SAME with respect to this issue, so it doesn't help answer the question that started this thread.

I personally didn't like the DOS restrictions in ME so I concentrated my attention on Windows 98SE. Todays experiment shows a way around that without making a lot of modifications.

[cluberti]

I increasingly believe that moderators write mistakes deliberately to provoke responses in a thread.

Really? What did I post that was incorrect? I'm genuinely curious, because what I've posted in this thread thusfar has been 100% accurate.

If I remember well, the 350MHz limit is for Amd processors only, and a patch exists anyway. I've just installed W95b on a 1400MHz PIII without any patch, by the absolutely standard method.

That indeed is correct, although on systems with faster CPUs in a VM you can get some EMM386 errors that appear to be timing-related (slowing down the virtual CPU in hyper-v, for instance, makes the problem go away in a 95 and a 98SE VM).

[dencorso]

None of that proves ME runs on top of DOS.

This discussion about who is on top of whom isn't going anywhere. As I stated before, Windows bootstraps itself using DOS and can then work pretty much on it's own. Eidenk's engine analogy is valid. Of course a diesel engine without a starter is pretty much useless.

The point is that Windows 95, 98 and ME are all the SAME with respect to this issue, so it doesn't help answer the question that started this thread.

I personally didn't like the DOS restrictions in ME so I concentrated my attention on Windows 98SE.

I agree. The main point is there are only two multitasking OS families originated at MS: 9x/ME and NT. And within each family, the differences are mostly in the details. And, yes, I prefer 98SE over ME for the same reason I do prefer raspberries over strawberries. Both, with some good tweaking, are rock solid.

Todays experiment shows a way around that without making a lot of modifications.

Yes, it does. And it's quite elegant. But just for the sake of completeness, let me remember the valuable Reines' patch: Real DOS-Mode Patch for Win ME v. 1.3, which works beautifully. It uses the EBD IO.SYS instead of the default one,

and ought to be applied after update Q311561, which updates both versions of IO.SYS.

Edited May 25, 2009 by dencorso

[LoneCrusader]

If I remember well, the 350MHz limit is for Amd processors only, and a patch exists anyway. I've just installed W95b on a 1400MHz PIII without any patch, by the absolutely standard method.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I recently installed 95C on a P4 2.0GHz machine and had to use the amdk6upd patch. Probably even the Intel processors at some point above the processor you used hit a limit where the patch is needed.

[jaclaz]

FYI (loosely related to rloew's report):

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2343

jaclaz