[jr2]

Found this vid, thought I'd share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14&feature=bf_next&list=ULNq1bDJ4TYWY&lf=like-suggest

(updating from 1.01 > 2.0 > 3.0 > '95 > '98 > 2K > XP > Vista > 7)
                           |         |        |
                       (       DOS 5.0      )

[headdie]

entertaining in a geeky way

[Ghostavo]

It's pretty impressive that Doom 2 and Monkey Island still work after having been installed in the earliest operating systems.

[jr2]

FWIW, I just installed Windows for Workgroups 3.11 + Calmira II (adds '95 start menu to 3.x) on DOSBox using latest D-Fend Re-loaded (which comes with the latest DOSBox, 0.74).  Pretty cool re-living the old days...

I hmm, aquired the install source for WFW3.11 as there's no way I'm trying to install from 20+ year old floppies.  Recipe for disaster, and I don't have my external floppy unpacked yet.

EDIT: Useful guide with handy 3.1 utils/resources/long lost patches/drivers here if anyone else wants to try...

EDIT2: If you use the above guide + D-Fend like I did and are having an issue with sound not playing in Windows even though you've installed drivers, then right-click Windows 3.1 shortcut in D-Fend, hit edit, click "Sound", and click "Activate Sound".  This will save you hours of fruitless troubleshooting.. 

[Mongoose]

I still have the Windows 95 installation disk from our dearly-departed Gateway 2000 beige box.  I'm toying with trying to install it on the former family machine, an 11-year-old Dell, just to see if it'll manage.

[MP-Ryan]

This video highlights Microsoft's biggest error-generating troubleshooting-hell-creating issue:  they refuse to draw a line in the sand and cut off backwards-compatibility at a certain threshold.

While I can applaud backwards compatibility on the one hand (and marvel at this), it just makes me wonder how much trouble could be avoided if some of it wasn't achieved.

[Ghostavo]

This video highlights Microsoft's biggest error-generating troubleshooting-hell-creating issue:  they refuse to draw a line in the sand and cut off backwards-compatibility at a certain threshold.

While I can applaud backwards compatibility on the one hand (and marvel at this), it just makes me wonder how much trouble could be avoided if some of it wasn't achieved.

Isn't backwards compatibility one of the reasons Windows is as successful as it is?

[MP-Ryan]

Isn't backwards compatibility one of the reasons Windows is as successful as it is?

Sure, but trying to provide support for features in an OS from 10 years ago in your latest release that also tries to take advantage of every new feature just causes problems.  Not saying Win7 shouldn't be backwards-compatible with Vista (it mostly should), but it most definitely should not be supporting features from 98 if they conflict.

I had a good example that escapes memory at the moment.

[The E]

If you read OldNewThing (Raymond Chen's blog), you'll find a lot of examples.

[jr2]

It would be nice if the OS could boot in compatibility mode for <insert old M$ OS here>, that way maybe compatibility would work even better, however, when normal programs are running, performance and reliability would be better as well.

I mean, if they included the ability to boot a sort of hybrid DOS / Win 3.x / '95 / '98 (and eventually when they are old and not being sold any more, XP / Vista / 7), then there would be almost nothing you couldn't run, and the newer OSes (that didn't have to have compatibility for archaic programs unless they booted into the compatibility mode) would be faster and more stable.

Thoughts?

[The E]

Sounds like a massive waste of space. Granted, everything up to XP didn't take up much storage, but having to keep copies of Vista, XP and 7 around is a bit much.

And that's without going into hardware compatibility issues, like how to deal with SATA drives, for example. IMHO, your best bet for compatibility are virtual machines. Once they figure out how to pass through GPU access to a VM, things get mighty interesting.

[LHN91]

There's a couple issues with this, not least of which is the fact that you will always get some crazies who take advantage of that to start browsing the web in their favourite antiquated Windows OS with absolutely no protection.

That assumes as well that Microsoft is willing to get these old OS's to work, even in a hybrid boot with modern hardware. And if we're talking about using one OS that boots into compatibility modes, I think that opens up even more holes in the OS, as you all of a sudden have legacy software present and possibly accessible from the primary OS.

At this point, I think Microsoft's best bet is to offer downloadable Virtual PC images with 3.1/95/98/etc. and spend some time getting 3D support to work properly from within those OS's, and make a reasonably clean break from there. You would still need to support the software from the last release or two of the OS, but it would allow for more forward thinking.

We're getting to the point where we have enough PC horsepower to handle this situation, at least within reason; and actually, the Windows 8 DP has support for mounting .VHDs built in, which makes me wonder if that isn't the way they're going.


.... Already typed this all out when The E posted, so to heck with it I'm posting it. ninja'd though.

[jr2]

Sounds like a massive waste of space. Granted, everything up to XP didn't take up much storage, but having to keep copies of Vista, XP and 7 around is a bit much.

And that's without going into hardware compatibility issues, like how to deal with SATA drives, for example. IMHO, your best bet for compatibility are virtual machines. Once they figure out how to pass through GPU access to a VM, things get mighty interesting.

Put compatibility for different versions in "turn Windows features on / off".. so, if they want something to run that was designed for '95, all they install is compatibility for '95.  Also, re the security, just have snapshot restores like Norton GoBack or something.

[Rodo]

Doom II and Monkey Island?, DUDE... where's Prince of Persia?, if you've got those you MUST have Prince of Persia!
turururu... 60 minutes left! better hurry.

[KyadCK]

We're getting to the point where we have enough PC horsepower to handle this situation, at least within reason; and actually, the Windows 8 DP has support for mounting .VHDs built in, which makes me wonder if that isn't the way they're going.

Win7 can already make, mount, and boot from .VHD:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/ff944958
http://rambletech.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/boot-windows-7-directly-from-virtual-hard-disk-image/

[LHN91]

We're getting to the point where we have enough PC horsepower to handle this situation, at least within reason; and actually, the Windows 8 DP has support for mounting .VHDs built in, which makes me wonder if that isn't the way they're going.

Win7 can already make, mount, and boot from .VHD:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/ff944958
http://rambletech.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/boot-windows-7-directly-from-virtual-hard-disk-image/

I was meaning more along the lines of the fact that it has the convenience of things like right click->mount, which I'm fairly certain isn't available in most versions of Win7. Implying that they may very well be prepping the idea for a more mainstream usage scenario.