BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 54d, 19h, 12m | CPU: 21% | MEM: 5817MB of 10957MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:10 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Posts
1035

Favourite OS
Windows NT, Debian
I have DOS=LOW(using dos 6.22 with setver win200.bin 3.40) in config.sys, himem and emm386 loaded, EMS appears to work, but when trying to run COMMAND.COM this happens:
Image

I am using 86box with a 386SX 40MHz, 16MB RAM, which should be more than enough to run command.com


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:26 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Posts
1429

Location
SE Asia

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 3.30a & Windows/386!
I'd stick with dos 3.3

_________________
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:49 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:39 pm

Posts
158

Location
Somewhere in QEMU

Favourite OS
Whistler 2428 and Longhorn 3713
louisw3 wrote:
I'd stick with dos 3.3


Yes, COMMAND.COM will only run in a window if you're using DOS 3.3 or below.

_________________
Image

BetaWiki contributor.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:34 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:40 pm

Posts
875

Location
Biman DC-10

Favourite OS
NT3.X Family
Even more important, guy says he's using 286 version.

Guy, I'd recommend using win 2.11 386 next time.

_________________
Quote:
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:59 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:52 pm

Posts
193

Location
State of Georgia USA

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 5.00.224 Beta
Try setver win200.bin 3.30.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:52 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Posts
1429

Location
SE Asia

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 3.30a & Windows/386!
yourepicfailure wrote:
Even more important, guy says he's using 286 version.

Guy, I'd recommend using win 2.11 386 next time.


True the 386 version with it's hypervisor is way more fun, although the Windows portion is still the same, running in real mode.

The 286 version is more so interesting as it'll let you run MS-DOS windowed and launch more than one. Although the memory crunch of the 286 in real mode hits hard and quick. While the 386 version just creates a new v86 machine per dos instance, giving far more memory. Also the 386 version has far more complete hardware emulation allowing the VGA / EGA version of Windows/386 to run CGA programs in a window.

_________________
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Win 2.11 286 and COMMAND.COM issue        Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:28 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:47 am

Posts
14
I think I remember having to make or use a PIF for it to run.


Top  Profile
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 5 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