PDA

View Full Version : Windows 2.03 on PC-XT Clone



AbsoZed
April 8th, 2016, 05:27 AM
Hi all! I've got a PC XT clone with a NEC v20, 640k RAM, 32MB MFM drive, EGA Video, and Serial Mouse that I managed to raise from the dead, and got FreeDOS installed on.

However, I can't seem to get Windows to install on the machine. When I attempt to run setup.exe from the installation floppy, it just hangs forever with a blinking cursor a line below the command.

Any ideas what could be causing this? Would the default SETUP.INF need to be adjusted somehow to accommodate for the PC-XT?

Thanks!

SomeGuy
April 8th, 2016, 05:39 AM
Windows 2.x should work nicely on this machine.

Setup.exe should run no mater what. If it hangs, that sounds like your disk image is corrupt.

Once installed, if you are using a version of DOS later than 3.x, you will need to use SETVER or a similar tool to report a DOS version of "3.40" to "WIN200.BIN". Otherwise Windows 2.x will crash at startup.

AbsoZed
April 8th, 2016, 05:47 AM
The floppy did have some 'bad sectors' on format when I created it from a 98 machine. However, trying the .img file in Virtualbox FreeDOS, it works fine, as did the physical floppy when I tried it in another machine. Regardless, I'll try and create another flop today and see how that goes as well.

Stone
April 8th, 2016, 05:58 AM
FWIW, an IMG file must be restored to a perfect floppy; one with no bad sectors whatsoever. Using a flawed disk for this operation can easily result in errors.

AbsoZed
April 8th, 2016, 06:08 AM
I have 5 perfect floppies (0 Bytes in bad sectors) on format that I just restored the .img files to. I'll try those tonight when I get home and update the thread. Thanks!

Trixter
April 8th, 2016, 10:14 AM
If the floppy tests out ok, use something other than FreeDOS; it might not be feature-complete or feature-exact enough to run Windows 2.x. Boot MS-DOS 6.22 and try again.

AbsoZed
April 8th, 2016, 01:50 PM
Just got home and tested. No dice on multiple floppy drives on the clone. Works fine in FreeDOS elsewhere. Any other suggestions?

Xacalite
April 8th, 2016, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't trust FreeDOS here, either.
The perfect DOS for such a machine is 3.30 - offers maximum compatibility with software from that era, and advanced features of later DOSes are mostly useless on an XT anyway.

SomeGuy
April 8th, 2016, 03:50 PM
The SETUP.EXE itself is a fairly well behaved DOS program. If that does not run then there is something more serious going on.

Try running some memory and disk diagnostics. Try opening setup.exe in a text or hex editor. You should see the "MZ" header and later some text strings related to setup. Boot from a clean disk without any TSRs. If this was something downloaded from the Internet perhaps try a different source. BTW Windows 2.1/286 also runs fine on an 8088 despite the name, and Windows 3.0 will also work on an 8088 although most Windows 3.0 software requires at least a 286.

Chuck(G)
April 8th, 2016, 04:58 PM
If the floppy tests out ok, use something other than FreeDOS; it might not be feature-complete or feature-exact enough to run Windows 2.x. Boot MS-DOS 6.22 and try again.


This. Old versions of Windows could be picky about "hidden" DOS APIs and other goodies.

krebizfan
April 8th, 2016, 06:14 PM
If DOS 6.22 does not work, check the readme file and make sure that HIMEM.SYS or similar drivers that require extended memory were not incorrectly loaded. V20 can sometimes be incorrectly identified.

I remember there were about a dozen special case install instructions for Windows 2.03 with certain less common systems.

AbsoZed
April 9th, 2016, 11:15 AM
I'll give 3.20 a try later. I was hesitant to blame FreeDOS since it works with your 2.03 virtualized. I'll also check out Setup.exe in a hexadecimal editor. Thanks

Caluser2000
April 9th, 2016, 03:10 PM
I'll give 3.20 a try later. I was hesitant to blame FreeDOS since it works with your 2.03 virtualised. I'll also check out Setup.exe in a hexadecimal editor. ThanksThe difference here by the looks is real hardware verses virtulisation. Hardware configurations do vary quite a bit. You might have better luck on real hardware with an older Freedos kernal specifically aimed at XT class systems. Like this one for example http://jorisvr.nl/freedos.html Alternatively an older PC/MS-Dos version as suggested.

FWIW I run MS-Dos 5.01a currently on both of my XT class systems.

Just as an aside you can also try Caldera OpenDos aka DrDos 7.01 http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/

Also you can test out a few other GUIs like GEM or PC Geos 1.x

AbsoZed
April 10th, 2016, 12:43 PM
The difference here by the looks is real hardware verses virtulisation. Hardware configurations do vary quite a bit. You might have better luck on real hardware with an older Freedos kernal specifically aimed at XT class systems. Like this one for example http://jorisvr.nl/freedos.html Alternatively an older PC/MS-Dos version as suggested.

FWIW I run MS-Dos 5.01a currently on both of my XT class systems.

Just as an aside you can also try Caldera OpenDos aka DrDos 7.01 http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/

Also you can test out a few other GUIs like GEM or PC Geos 1.x


That's actually exactly the boot image I was using. I haven't been able to get 3.20 yet since I can't get Win98 to recognize USB mass storage, so I'll try again tomorrow... No anomalies in the Hex Editor that I saw.

Caluser2000
April 10th, 2016, 09:34 PM
That's actually exactly the boot image I was using. I haven't been able to get 3.20 yet since I can't get Win98 to recognize USB mass storage, so I'll try again tomorrow... No anomalies in the Hex Editor that I saw.I had no problem getting usb mass storage on Win98 first edition using the link in this guide http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php

One thing I did notice is that only 494k is available in this FreeDos version. Pretty poor compared to traditional Dos, though it does have Fat32 support.

1ST1
April 10th, 2016, 10:23 PM
Windows 98 is not Windows 1.0x or 2.0x. You even won't get Windows 98 running on an XT.

I got Windows 1.0x and 2.0x running quite nice on my XTs (ATARI PC3 and Olivetti M24) which are running MS-DOS 3.20 and 5.00. I only have trouble with the BUS-mouse of the ATARI-PC.

Caluser2000
April 10th, 2016, 10:48 PM
Windows 98 is not Windows 1.0x or 2.0x. You even won't get Windows 98 running on an XT.Goodness who would've thought?

I suspect the OP going to use the win98 as a go between system, hence the requirement to get usb mass storage working.

SpidersWeb
April 11th, 2016, 01:21 AM
On the note of Windows 98 and data transfer funtimes....

Pop a network card in it, plug it in to your internet router, configure TCP/IP + File Sharing, create a new folder and share it.
Your modern Windows PC will be able to drop files on to it over the network (but probably not the other way around).

There is a driver out there to add USB Mass Storage to Windows 98, I've done it a few times, but don't have the link handy. It's also quite annoying from memory as I couldn't hot-plug the stick, had to reboot each time? (Edit: nevermind, I see Cal has posted a good link already)

Trixter
April 13th, 2016, 12:25 PM
One thing I did notice is that only 494k is available in this FreeDos version. Pretty poor compared to traditional Dos, though it does have Fat32 support.

I tested the latest FreeDOS 8086-compatible kernel files (off the official website, not a hack build) that included FAT32 support recently and I didn't recall the free RAM being that low...

Caluser2000
April 14th, 2016, 11:28 AM
I tested the latest FreeDOS 8086-compatible kernel files (off the official website, not a hack build) that included FAT32 support recently and I didn't recall the free RAM being that low...You mention 499k in another tread. Still a lot lower than traditional Dos.

Trixter
April 16th, 2016, 01:05 PM
I used 4DOS/NDOS to get the free RAM higher; 572K free was possible on my test setup if using 4DOS disk swapping.

Caluser2000
April 16th, 2016, 01:35 PM
Here's vwestlife's free conventional mem. comparison list without any memory managers loaded of various MS/PC Dos variants:

"I just went through all my boot disks, and ran CHKDSK on each one to display the amount of free RAM (out of 640K) on each one, using a totally clean boot (no CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT):

PC DOS 2.00 ... 630,672 bytes
PC DOS 2.10 ... 630,672
PC DOS 3.10 ... 616,432
MS-DOS 3.10 ... 616,432
PC DOS 3.21 ... 609,392
PC DOS 3.30 ... 600,528
MS-DOS 3.30 ... 600,368
IBM DOS 5.00 ... 593,328
MS-DOS 5.00 ... 593,328
MS-DOS 6.00 ... 592,256
IBM DOS 6.10 ... 593,056
MS-DOS 6.22 ... 592,256
PC DOS 6.30 ... 593,024
PC DOS 7.00 Revision 0 ... 593,840
PC DOS 2000 (7.00 Revision 1) ... 593,760

I also have an MS-DOS 4.01 boot disk, but not a copy of CHKDSK which will work with it, so I can't give it an accurate free RAM amount, but judging by what other utilities report, it's somewhere in the ballpark of 590,000 bytes. So IBM claimed that PC DOS 7 offered the most free RAM of any version of DOS since 3.3, and that does appear to be true!"

DrDos 6.0 gave me 588,544 bytes. I should see what Novell/Caldera Dos's report just out of interest/curiousity.

yuhong
April 16th, 2016, 04:01 PM
This. Old versions of Windows could be picky about "hidden" DOS APIs and other goodies.

I wonder why they didn't delay Windows 3.0 to add DOS 5.0 support.

Caluser2000
April 16th, 2016, 04:08 PM
I wonder why they didn't delay Windows 3.0 to add DOS 5.0 support.I'd imagine to try to clobber IBM OS/2 sales.

MS Dos 5.0 was also a reaction to DrDos 5.0 iirc

yuhong
April 16th, 2016, 04:12 PM
I'd imagine to try clobber IBM OS/2 sales.

The OS/2 2.0 project did not turn into a fiasco until after Windows 3.0 released.

Caluser2000
April 16th, 2016, 04:18 PM
The OS/2 2.0 project did not turn into a fiasco until after Windows 3.0 released.Which validates my suggestion. MS where about to split from the project so shipped something that will fill the gap...

yuhong
April 16th, 2016, 04:20 PM
Which validates my suggestion.

Did you forget that MS for example released the MS OS/2 2.0 SDK in December 1989, not that long before Win3.0 released?

Caluser2000
April 16th, 2016, 04:30 PM
It's called hedging ones bets. MS were good at that and always had fingers in a few pies. An early form of NT was also in development in parallel with OS/2, which was to be it's successor. Windows 3.0 was a runaway success despite it's flaws.