BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 1d, 13h, 39m | CPU: 35% | MEM: 2000MB of 4721MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:33 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:37 am

Posts
272

Favourite OS
2000s era windows
hey all,

just been reading up on windows 95 for the past few days, specifically its architecture and dos dependency. random question though, as of the leaked builds we have, was it always a hybrid 16-32 bit os or early on was it likewise to 3.1? and as such, was it still just a gui for dos?

thanks

_________________
Don't visit much, if ever.

Looking to contact me? Shoot me a PM on reddit (here).


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:48 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm

Posts
223

Location
Zurich, Switzerland

Favourite OS
Win95 4.00.224
Chicago did Begun with Cougar for 32-bits, but with Windows NT 3.1 was a real 32-bit Windows because of NTFS. But the 32-Bit Kernel on DOS and Windows Chicago was really long unstable because double so many Letters in a Program. With Chicago 122 the 32-Bit Kernel was Beginn to be more stable.

_________________
My YouTube Channel
My Equipment for everything
Windows Kämpfer® --> Discord


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:07 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1227

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
Based on the info from anti-trust documents, it started out from Cougar - essentially Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (3.11 was in development at the same time as Chicago) running on top of DOS. I imagine once they got the kernel to 32-bits and integrated DOS into it, they moved onto the features. One such thing was the new 32-bit API, which was a special subset of NT's Win32 API called Win32c. Lots of apps remained 16-bit well into development, before they were ported to 32-bits.

The documents mention a small ISV release in March 1993 which still had the old shell. And we have footage of the usability testing builds from January 1993 with the new shell. In terms of leaked builds, 58s still has a 16-bit file cabinet (proto-Explorer) and some other apps, which were later ported to 32-bits.

_________________
KRNL386 - A site about retro computing
My MEGA storage for betas and abandonware


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:37 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am

Posts
720

Favourite OS
SVR 2012R2/Win10
Seeing as even Windows 3.1 eventually had Win32s, before Chicago was released, we know that some effort was being made in the user-space portion of DOS-based Windows for 32-bit functionality. I would assume (and thus make an ass of myself) that the Chicago kernel (VMM32) was always 32-bit -- Chicago (as well as 98 and ME) ran on top of a 32-bit virtual machine, which had a few similarities to NT's services/drivers architecture, without introducing the full NT kernel to DOS.

The entire project allowed Microsoft to extend DOS's feature-set for a couple more years, without incurring huge research and development costs, like those incurred on providing backward compatibility on NT5+.

_________________
For the best, unscripted prank calls, check out prankcallnation.com!
Need disks scanned in the USA? I have a Kryoflux, and am willing to help get your disks archived! PM for details.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:37 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Online

Joined
Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:26 pm

Posts
244

Location
Edinburgh, Scotland

Favourite OS
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
InsertGoodNameHere wrote:
hey all,

just been reading up on windows 95 for the past few days, specifically its architecture and dos dependency. random question though, as of the leaked builds we have, was it always a hybrid 16-32 bit os or early on was it likewise to 3.1? and as such, was it still just a gui for dos?

thanks

The 32 bit kernel of Windows, the virtual machine manager (VMM), existed since Windows/386 (2.x). With successive versions of Windows, the VMM was enriched with numerous virtual device drivers implementing operating system services directly rather than passing them to the underlying DOS and BIOS. Even though marketing stated that Windows 95 was not based on DOS, this is as true (or as false) as saying that Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was not based on DOS.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:25 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:52 pm

Posts
134

Location
State of Georgia USA

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 5.00.224 Beta
Windows 95 is hybrid between Win16 and Win32. That why Windows 95 is not 32 bit true Operation System like Windows NT. The Book name Undocumented Windows talk about Windows 95 virtual machine manager descended from Windows/386 2.01 in 1987.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: was chicago always truly 32-bit?        Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:17 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:37 am

Posts
272

Favourite OS
2000s era windows
xelloss wrote:
Even though marketing stated that Windows 95 was not based on DOS, this is as true (or as false) as saying that Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was not based on DOS.


as proven here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=24063

interesting read. tl;dr dos worked as a boot loader and 16 bit compatibility layer; IFSMGR.SYS and the 32-bit file manager work to run 16-bit dos stuff in 32-bit mode

thanks for the replies guys

_________________
Don't visit much, if ever.

Looking to contact me? Shoot me a PM on reddit (here).


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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