Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:42:43 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby)
Cc:        nate@mt.sri.com, terry@lambert.org, jamie@inna.net, toneil@visigenic.com, jfieber@indiana.edu, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC?
Message-ID:  <199702210142.SAA00747@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <199702201716.JAA01037@lightside.com> from "Jake Hamby" at Feb 20, 97 09:16:17 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry, I'll have to jump in and agree with Nate and the others that
> you are wrong about Win95 renaming config.sys and autoexec.bat.  Maybe
> you misunderstood the question, but you are wrong.
> 
> Windows 95, from what I've experienced, may comment out one or two
> drivers that it knows about (basically MS ones like MSCDEX), but
> leaves the rest of config.sys and autoexec.bat basically intact.
> It may make a separate autoexec.dos with uncommented versions of
> MSCDEX and so forth, but the originally files are NOT renamed.
> Admit you are wrong!

I reinstalled Windows95 on a scratch system before making my
previous posting to Nate.  It exhibited the behaviour I
described, namely renaming instead of copying those files.  The
scratch system was a WFWG 3.11 with a vendor-supplied CDROM
driver and several other components (like McAfee antivirus) that
were loaded into the autoexec.bat and config.sys.

I will make you the same offer I made Nate (I haven't seen a message
from any of "and the others").  If you can tell me how to duplicate
your results locally, on a scratch system, I will duplicate them,
and if I get the same results, I will repost my other posting's
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, with minor editing of paragraph 2 to include
the admission.

Most likely, you or Nate will need to provide me with a file to
point to in config.sys or autoexec.bat, one you know for a fact will
not be removed by the Win95 install.


> As for whether or not it *uses* these DOS drivers in Win32 mode, I
> will agree that it doesn't, if it also has a native Win32 driver
> for the device in question.

Yes.  And if it doesn't have one, it still won't call the "DOS not
busy interrupt" or push all INT 21 calls all the way down to the
16 bit driver, unless you change configuration options away from
the defaults, so even if you have a 16 bit driver, it won't do you
any good unless you do something non-standard, or it happens to only
hook interrupts that don't get proxies to a protect mode dispatcher.

> But the drivers ARE still loaded, they DO take up conventional (or 
> high) memory, and they WILL be used if the system is exited to DOS
> mode.

All agreed (except it's "Restart the computer in MS-DOS mode").


					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702210142.SAA00747>