Windows 1.x/2.x vs 3.x DOS windows

[GL1zdA]

I''ve just realized, that with Windows 3.0 gone is the possibility to run DOS applications in windows in real and standard mode, you can only run DOS applications windowed in enhanced mode. This is odd, because Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x (pre Windows/386) are direct predecessors of Windows 3.x real and standard mode. Can anybody explain what could cause dropping support for windowed DOS apps in thes modes in Windows 3.x?

[xelloss]

I''ve just realized, that with Windows 3.0 gone is the possibility to run DOS applications in windows in real and standard mode, you can only run DOS applications windowed in enhanced mode. This is odd, because Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x (pre Windows/386) are direct predecessors of Windows 3.x real and standard mode. Can anybody explain what could cause dropping support for windowed DOS apps in thes modes in Windows 3.x?

DOS apps could never run in a window in standard mode because standard mode Windows and DOS applications are mutually exclusive.
When you run a DOS application in Windows standard mode, Windows actually stops running, saves its state, returns to real mode, and invokes a DOS TSR (the standard mode task switcher, aka DSSWAP) to run the DOS application _in DOS_.

Remember there was no standard mode before Windows 3.0: only real mode and, starting Windows/386 2.x, a not-so-enhanced 386 mode in which windows applications ran in virtual 8086 mode rather than protected mode.

(However this doesn't explain why Windows 3.0 didn't support windowed DOS apps in real mode).

[GL1zdA]

Yes, I'm aware standard mode was not available before 3.x, I would still expect that windowed mode DOS apps would run at least in real mode. Either Microsoft expected most people to run in enhanced mode or accepted that it was a mayor step back.

[NCommander]

A lot of it is due to the fact that you need to do a *lot* of processor tricks to make such a thing work. It should be noted that OS/2 1.0 -> 1.3 all could only run a single OS/2 program and couldn't multitask them.

For COMMAND.COM in Windows 1.x, Microsoft basically did some serious sight of hand magic to make it work in a window, but and non-built in suspends Windows, and then hands control back to DOS.

Windows 286 could show multiple command lines, and had some multitasking capability, but it was pretty limited. https://i.imgur.com/fI9in6W.png

[GL1zdA]

A lot of it is due to the fact that you need to do a *lot* of processor tricks to make such a thing work. It should be noted that OS/2 1.0 -> 1.3 all could only run a single OS/2 program and couldn't multitask them.

For COMMAND.COM in Windows 1.x, Microsoft basically did some serious sight of hand magic to make it work in a window, but and non-built in suspends Windows, and then hands control back to DOS.

Windows 286 could show multiple command lines, and had some multitasking capability, but it was pretty limited. https://i.imgur.com/fI9in6W.png

Yes, it sounds crude, but this multitasking was a feature MS cared a lot during Windows 1.x/2.x days. I have the official MS handbooks (Running Windows by Livingston/Andrews) and a big part of the book is the description on how to copy data from DOS apps and how much easier it is, when the app is "well-behaved" and can be run in a window. That's why I find it odd, that they've dropped it for the low-end machines.