BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 25d, 21h, 35m | CPU: 26% | MEM: 5649MB of 10963MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Backporting software from Windows 3.0 to Windows 2.x?        Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:25 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Would it be at all possible? I understand there's API differences, but what if we, say, used Windows 2.11 and included the kernel from Windows 3.00? I think it'd be mighty cool to write/run VB programs under Windows/386.

*starts attempt to construct Windows 2-lookalike Windows 3 system*

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:49 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:04 pm

Posts
2797

Favourite OS
Anything checked :P
hmm. could possibly try this in a virtual pc maybe .....

_________________
C H E C K E D . B U I L D S . A R E . A W E S O M E N E S S

Glitch City Laboratories ForumsSoftHistory Forumsirc.rol.im #softhistory,#galaxy

If you like my posts, donate me Dogecoin: DLnZV8DS3CaZmLKAVxL2aMijY2vUZeyjBi


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:56 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am

Posts
953

Location
My house
If this project does work, I could do a bit of programming for Windows 2.11 as I know a bit of Delphi and Delphi 1 runs on Windows 3.0 (or is it only 3.1).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
mdogg wrote:
If this project does work, I could do a bit of programming for Windows 2.11 as I know a bit of Delphi and Delphi 1 runs on Windows 3.0 (or is it only 3.1).


3.1 only, I'm afraid.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:13 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Posts
932
marktuson: You can't just "replace" a kernel like that. Also the differences between these two version of windows is like the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 2000... other than sharing part of a name, and a handful of API function names, they are functionally different.

Programming for Windows pre-3.x was friggin difficult. There weren't all-in-one IDEs like their are now. When such things came around, that is when Windows started becoming popular.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:43 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
RentedMule wrote:
marktuson: You can't just "replace" a kernel like that. Also the differences between these two version of windows is like the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 2000... other than sharing part of a name, and a handful of API function names, they are functionally different.

Programming for Windows pre-3.x was friggin difficult. There weren't all-in-one IDEs like their are now. When such things came around, that is when Windows started becoming popular.


That's why I thought of trying the kernel out in Windows/386. Only one step before Windows 3.00. It also means that if it could work, it would functionally be Windows 3.00, wouldn't it?

As far as I know, the Windows API hasn't changed significantly since 1984. Yes, the executable format has changed slightly.

I am aware of much of Windows' history, and know full well that the first graphical IDE was Visual Basic 1.0, released on 1990 for Windows 3.00. But I also know that Windows 2.11/386 was released in 1989. As far as I can remember, Windows 3.00=Windows/386+better GUI+slightly better kernel. Yes, it was difficult to program Windows 2.x, but it would have been just as hard to program Windows 3.x and up if things like Visual Basic and Delphi weren't released.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:59 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Posts
932
marktuson: They were completely different. Windows 3.* ran in protected mode. That in itself made it multitudes different on how it operated, specifically in memory management and multitasking. Because of this, Windows 3.* was able to virtualize DOS and run it in a window if it used only text-mode only services.

Then you have GDI (along with Device Independent Bitmaps) for graphical display, DDE/OLE for cross process integration/communication, TrueType fonts, MDI interfaces (remember, Windows 2.* was lucky to be able to overlap windows at all), Common Dialog boxes, Shell Extensions, and multitudes more.

The API is hardly the same at all. If by the same, you mean about 100 functions with similar names (the actual parameters and functions even differ), then sure they are the same. But that is like comparing a bicycle with a monster truck... sure they have wheels and their goal is to take you from point A to point B, but their similarity ends there.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:04 pm 
Reply with quote
Permanently Banned
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:09 am

Posts
463
When you look at Raw Win32 API, and not any VB runtimes, MFC, or any other middleman, yes, a small basic application should be able to run on Windows 2.x if you alter the resource format in the executable (they switched that around from 2.x -> 3.0). What you would use to do this is beyond me.

When you add in something like a VB runtime or an MFC library, the library will make calls to functions not defined and implemented in Win2's API, thus, it just won't run.

Expect for the 16-32bit conversion, Microsoft never really removed many API calls, it's mainly been bug fixes and additions.

Off topic, but if you compiile the app generated by the Win32 app wizard in MSVC 2003, it will run on win32's, which somewhat explains the point im trying to make.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:54 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
What about a simpler option: graft Windows 2's GUI and bootscreen and whatnot onto the backend of Windows 3.0? Like WindowBlinds for Windows 3.00 without branding.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS