This person is writing a Win16 emulator

[Flojomojo]

https://medium.com/@CantabileApp/win3mu-part-1-why-im-writing-a-16-bit-windows-emulator-2eae946c935d#.tlazcjd8q

 

Interesting thoughts, which I thought might resonate with some people here

[Keatah]

Flawed from the beginning.

"What would it take to write an emulator with just enough support to run these old games?"

Sounds half-assed and incomplete.

 

Win 3.1 in DosBox works nicely, with enough support (and more) to run my MX-80 dot-matrix printer. And I can run Office applications on it.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Keatah

[+Gemintronic]

WINE cannot do this? Maybe getting WINE for Windows to compile properly again would be less work.

[Keatah]

I'd rather see less duplication of efforts and more focus on improving and fine-tuning existing projects.

 

It seems that with duplication of efforts, projects only go so far, then the developer burns out. And nothing has been accomplished except creating confusion about which "product" is better and a general overall cluttering of the ecosphere/space where the product fits into.

 

Much like politics and the space program. Things only progress so far before they stop and are rebooted for no good reason other than to do so.

 

We already have acceptable support for running Windows 3.1 material. Dosbox is one method, and I'm quite pleased with what can be done already. Sure there's room for improvement and no doubt there are other methods available that I haven't tried out yet..but anyways..

 

[CatPix]

Win 3.1 in DosBox works nicely, with enough support (and more) to run my MX-80 dot-matrix printer. And I can run Office applications on it.

Does it now?

Last I checked (about 4 month ago) you needed to use Himem.sys and command.com from an original Microsoft MS- DOS, and fiddle with parameters and Windows 3.11 MAY work under DosBox.

Edited September 19, 2016 by CatPix

[Keatah]

We're doing the real thing here. Not a shell.

[jdgabbard]

We're doing the real thing here. Not a shell.

That's kind of where I stand. It's one thing to emulate hardware, you're replacing older unavailable components or making transfer between modern PCs more efficient. It's another thing to emulate machines in a virtual environment. Not that it doesn't have a place. Take NES emulation, or any other console for that matter. But, in my mind it's for hipsters. If you get off on writing the code and accomplishing the goal, so be it. But I'd rather play in real hardware.

[Osgeld]

There's applications for a 16 bit windows emulator other than jezzball and CD ROM porn games

 

Just saying

[Keatah]

Does it now?

 

It does.

 

And if it doesn't it means you're doing something wrong. There is no "maybe". Win31 works in dosbox. There can be issues in shells/emulators/VMs just as there can be issues in real hardware. Similar in level of difficulty, different in specific actions.

 

 

Last I checked (about 4 month ago) you needed to use Himem.sys and command.com from an original Microsoft MS- DOS, and fiddle with parameters and Windows 3.11 MAY work under DosBox.

 

Not any more fiddling than on a real 486 DOS machine. And it goes faster because of the facilities afforded by the host machine, file manager, multiple windows and instances, documentation..

 

While using DosBox, HIMEM.SYS and COMMAND.COM need not be present to run Windows 3. - just say'n..

[MrMaddog]

WINE cannot do this? Maybe getting WINE for Windows to compile properly again would be less work.

 

Well, first you have to recode it to use Win32 API's instead of X Window System. And like the guy said, you still need a virtual x86 processor because 64-bit OS's cannot run 16-bit code at all. But if you there is a WINE For Windows, it would also be beneficial for older 32-bit programs since the WINE libraries would replace the 32-bit Win32 ones that Microsoft depreicated. In other words, better 32-bit compatibility...

 

Yes you can also run Windows 3.1 in DOSbox, if you have a legal copy and willing to install all those floppy disks.

[Flojomojo]

But, in my mind it's for hipsters. If you get off on writing the code and accomplishing the goal, so be it. But I'd rather play in real hardware.

 

You know that's like the most hipster thing anyone can say, right? I submit to you that real hardware is for hipsters.

[The Usotsuki]

An NTVDM with a cpu emulator (as I'm led to understand existed on some of the non-x86 ports of NT) that plugs into any 64-bit Windows, would be nice.

 

Such a tool would run DOS and Win16 apps.

 

Actually, I don't think Windows *3.10* has that much of its own API outside of external DLLs, does it? (Certainly less than 95 gold or any other 9x would've had) And what there is could probably be mapped without *too* much difficulty onto Win32, I suppose.

[Newsdee]

This has an edge over Dosbox if there is zero setup for users other than an installer.

 

Eons ago many people I talked to in forums and BBS where against the idea of packaging a dedicated DOS emulator over using an x86 VM. Needless to say I was happy when Dosbox was announced. This feel like the same, why bother with DOS?

[jdgabbard]

You know that's like the most hipster thing anyone can say, right? I submit to you that real hardware is for hipsters.

Not really. There is a difference between a hipster and a collector / enthusiast.

[Osgeld]

This feel like the same, why bother with DOS?

I dunno I usually end up dickig with Dosbox much much much more getting things to run more than I actually use it

 

(Ie ohhh the sound card is studdering cause dB is running at 9/16th the real clock rate but if I correct that the video wigs out type of crap)

Edited September 24, 2016 by Osgeld

[82-T/A]

https://medium.com/@CantabileApp/win3mu-part-1-why-im-writing-a-16-bit-windows-emulator-2eae946c935d#.tlazcjd8q

 

Interesting thoughts, which I thought might resonate with some people here

 

I think it would be pretty cool.

 

One of my favorite games back in the day was "Castle of the Winds." It requires Windows 3.1...