• Freedos and Windows 3.x

    From MIKE POWELL@21:1/175 to ACN on Fri Feb 16 08:23:00 2024
    So, it is absolutely possible to use Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS/Novell DOS/
    OpenDOS.
    [A=>N]

    What about FreeDOS?

    Mike

    ##Mmr 2.61. !link A 2-15-24 14:18
    ---
    BgNet 1.012 moe's tavern * 1-502-875-8938 * moetiki.ddns.net:27
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (21:1/175)
  • From acn@21:3/127.1 to MIKE POWELL on Wed Feb 21 17:00:00 2024
    Am 16.02.24 schrieb MIKE POWELL@21:1/175 in FSX_RETRO:

    Hallo MIKE,

    So, it is absolutely possible to use Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS/Novell DOS/
    OpenDOS.
    [A=>N]

    What about FreeDOS?

    I guess it will also work, but I've never used FreeDOS.

    Regards,
    Anna

    --- OpenXP 5.0.57
    * Origin: Imzadi Box Point (21:3/127.1)
  • From j0HNNY a1PHA@21:4/158 to acn on Thu Feb 22 16:06:17 2024
    What about FreeDOS?

    I guess it will also work, but I've never used FreeDOS.

    I just installed the other day following this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG5jVYrpKiM

    It's MSDOS + Win 3.11 on proxmox, but no reason why it wouldn't work with FREEDOS as well, I think.

    Requires Docker just to extract the Windows 3.11 ISO, but pretty
    painless. Despite the anoying sped-up voice over :)


    |08.|05j|13A|08.


    --- Talisman v0.53-dev (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: R3tr0/X BBS :: retrox.us:1992 (21:4/158)
  • From paulie420@21:2/150 to j0HNNY a1PHA on Thu Feb 22 18:26:12 2024
    [YT Video: Setting up MS-DOS 6.22 in Proxmox]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG5jVYrpKiM

    Thanks for the link! :P



    |07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
    |08.........

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@21:4/122 to j0HNNY a1PHA on Fri Feb 23 06:36:00 2024
    j0HNNY a1PHA wrote to acn <=-

    It's MSDOS + Win 3.11 on proxmox, but no reason why it wouldn't work
    with FREEDOS as well, I think.

    Requires Docker just to extract the Windows 3.11 ISO, but pretty
    painless. Despite the anoying sped-up voice over :)

    There are plain ISOs of Windows 3.11 that don't require Docker out
    there... What I would like to find is a tutorial showing how to get
    networking and better graphics working in Windows 3.11. I don't think
    there are Windows 3.11 drivers for the network and video cards in most
    VM environments, so you end up with low-res video and no networking.



    ... If it isn't broken, I can fix it.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    * Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
  • From fusion@21:1/616 to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 23 16:30:15 2024
    On 23 Feb 2024, poindexter FORTRAN said the following...

    There are plain ISOs of Windows 3.11 that don't require Docker out there... What I would like to find is a tutorial showing how to get networking and better graphics working in Windows 3.11. I don't think there are Windows 3.11 drivers for the network and video cards in most
    VM environments, so you end up with low-res video and no networking.

    https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=102121

    looks like the AMD PCNET driver works fine (same one i'd use in OS/2 in VirtualBox) .. QEMU (and by extension everything based on QEMU) probably supports it. 86box looks like it does too. lots of options.

    it's pretty likely at least some of these setups will work very poorly even if they are fully functional.. my win3.11 vbox machine has a jumpy mouse that makes it basically unenjoyable to use.. if you were running a bbs on it though that might be fine. (i wanted to use it to play games!)

    dosbox apparently requires one of the forked versions to do one thing, and perhaps another for the next.. dosbox-x might do everything you want? but then i've had problems with dosbox not properly emulating a serial port (closing the tcp socket for the serial port doesn't drop DTR, so nothing can tell there was a disconnect) ..

    but i found a post stating they managed to run win3 at 1600x1200 on dosbox-x? there's hope! lol. tbh i'll probably look into this too. i'm quite fond of win3.. i used to boot my old win3 machine a few times a year because i kept my vacation checklist and some other junk on there. never moved stuff over because it just felt right to do it on there.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
  • From AKAcastor@21:1/162 to Fusion on Fri Feb 23 13:46:50 2024
    dosbox apparently requires one of the forked versions to do one thing, and perhaps another for the next.. dosbox-x might do
    everything you want? but then i've had problems with
    dosbox not properly emulating a serial port (closing the
    tcp socket for the serial port doesn't drop DTR, so
    nothing can tell there was a disconnect) ..

    I have been using DOSBox-X on an ongoign basis for a while, setting up a multinode BBS in multiple DOSBox-X sessions. I've had good luck with it, but like all the options there can be tradeoffs. The "which fork of DOSBox should I use?" is for sure confusing - many parts the same, but some differences, and over time the different forks sometimes merge features from each other (but sometimes not). Generally speaking, DOSBox-X has had more focus on running applications and other software, while the original DOSBox was game-oriented. (I think over time this difference has become less distinct.) As far as I understand it, DOSBox Staging is a more up-to-date version of mainline DOSBox.

    There have been some serial port/telnet issues I had to work through (telnet escaping binary data), but at least in DOSBox-X the Carrier Detect is working to detect telnet disconnections. The softmodem implementations are different in the forks of DOSBox, so YMMV.

    but i found a post stating they managed to run win3 at
    1600x1200 on dosbox-x? there's hope! lol. tbh i'll
    probably look into this too. i'm quite fond of win3.. i
    used to boot my old win3 machine a few times a year
    because i kept my vacation checklist and some other junk
    on there. never moved stuff over because it just felt
    right to do it on there.

    Win3 at 1600x1200 is absolute insanity, I can't really wrap my head around that idea. I just.. I just don't even.

    That's awesome you kept your Win3 machine going for so long. I don't know if I have the same level of fondness for Win3 as you, but as time goes on it doesseem to improve in my memory. :)


    Chris/akacastor

    --- Maximus 3.01
    * Origin: Another Millennium - Canada - another.tel (21:1/162)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@21:4/122 to fusion on Sat Feb 24 08:54:00 2024
    fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-


    looks like the AMD PCNET driver works fine (same one i'd use in OS/2 in VirtualBox) .. QEMU (and by extension everything based on QEMU)
    probably supports it. 86box looks like it does too. lots of options.

    Proxmox is qemu based, I'll take a look. I've been playing with Win3.11
    in DOSBOX, packet drivers work but the built-in TCP/IP doesn't.

    but i found a post stating they managed to run win3 at 1600x1200 on dosbox-x? there's hope! lol. tbh i'll probably look into this too. i'm quite fond of win3.. i used to boot my old win3 machine a few times a
    year because i kept my vacation checklist and some other junk on there. never moved stuff over because it just felt right to do it on there.


    FIngers crossed for DOSBOX-X working, I like being able to share
    filesystems between DOSBOX and my Windows host.



    ... The answers will be found in the logs.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    * Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
  • From j0HNNY a1PHA@21:4/158 to AKAcastor on Wed Feb 28 02:23:30 2024
    I have been using DOSBox-X on an ongoign basis for a while, setting up
    a multinode BBS in multiple DOSBox-X sessions. I've had good luck
    with it, but like all the options there can be tradeoffs. The "which
    fork of DOSBox should I use?" is for sure confusing - many parts the
    same, but some differences, and over time the different forks
    sometimes merge features from each other (but sometimes not).
    Generally speaking, DOSBox-X has had more focus on running
    applications and other software, while the original DOSBox was game-oriented. (I think over time this difference has become less distinct.) As far as I understand it, DOSBox Staging is a more
    up-to-date version of mainline DOSBox.

    I'm setting up a DOSBIAN machine on my RPi 4, it's that diatro that boots directly into DOS and can run up to Win 95. I have a couple Pi's laying
    around, so I thought it'd be good to use as single-node DOS BBS
    instances. Give the illusion of being on dedeicated machine :)

    I've been futzing around for a month with virtualized machines, Win32,
    OS/2, etc. so I thought I'd give the Pi a go as well. Although so far, for
    DOS BBSs, OS/2 is my fav. There are some issues with Renegade spiking RAM
    and crashing, but PCBOARD and TELEGARD run pretty smooth...





    |08.|05j|13A|08.


    --- Talisman v0.53-dev (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: R3tr0/X BBS :: retrox.us:1992 (21:4/158)
  • From AKAcastor@21:1/162 to J0hnny A1pha on Wed Feb 28 12:08:42 2024
    I'm setting up a DOSBIAN machine on my RPi 4, it's that diatro that boots directly into DOS and can run up to Win 95. I have a couple Pi's laying around, so I thought it'd be good to use as single-node DOS BBS
    instances. Give the illusion of being on dedeicated machine :)

    That sounds like a great setup, I will also be checking out Dosbian - booting straight into DOS definitely an aesthetic I can appreciate!

    I've been futzing around for a month with virtualized machines, Win32, OS/2, etc. so I thought I'd give the Pi a go as well. Although so far, for DOS BBSs, OS/2 is my fav. There are some issues with Renegade spiking RAM and crashing, but PCBOARD and TELEGARD run pretty smooth...

    Are you running ArcaOS, or another version of OS/2? Definitely interested to hear more about the virtualization experiments.


    Chris/akacastor

    --- Maximus 3.01
    * Origin: Another Millennium - Canada - another.tel (21:1/162)
  • From j0HNNY a1PHA@21:4/158 to AKAcastor on Wed Feb 28 21:20:06 2024
    Are you running ArcaOS, or another version of OS/2? Definitely
    interested to hear more about the virtualization experiments.

    Yes, running ArcaOS v5.1 on a Thinkpad T43 that I picked up for $40 on
    eBay, and it installed easier than when I tried on more modern hardware
    (had to use DFSee to deal with partitions on a modern PC). Wireless
    doesn't work, but that's OK, it's not actually portable anyway.

    ArcaOS also installs OK on Lenovo m93p, a thin/cheap computer, but it's
    got a couple annoying driver issues to work around.

    Advantage of modern CPU, tho, is multi-core! Didn't have the RAM spike
    problems on my modern test PC -- but there is a (known) annoying issue
    where windowed OS/2 and DOS consoles lock up -- it doesn't happen on full-screen console launch though, so there is a work around. And SIO just solves a huge problem in terms of handling incoming telnet...

    I'm digging PCBoard running on the Thinkpad (other than the
    constant noise, lol), and ArcaOS supports SMB and VNC, so it's easy to
    access file shares and do remote admin stuff.

    Oh, I was able to get ArcaOS running on VirtualBox, but I had no luck on ProxMox...

    So far I've got the 4 DOS experiments:

    1) ProxMox (hit a wall with NDIS2 driver tho and DHCP tho)
    2) Dosbian (TBD - high hopes!!)
    3) ArcaOS (working with OS/2 native BBS packages, real hardware)
    4) Physical DOS machine (I'm cobbling together with an RTL8139 and VGA)

    I *really* like physical machines, but that PC a mini-tower and just can't
    see myself building multiple machines for this!

    Hoping I can crack ProMox or Dosbian with RINGDOWN on the front-end :)

    Cheers,



    |08.|05j|13A|08.


    --- Talisman v0.53-dev (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: R3tr0/X BBS :: retrox.us:1992 (21:4/158)
  • From AKAcastor@21:1/162 to J0hnny A1pha on Wed Feb 28 13:33:26 2024
    Yes, running ArcaOS v5.1 on a Thinkpad T43 that I picked up for $40 on eBay, and it installed easier than when I tried on more modern hardware (had to use DFSee to deal with partitions on a modern PC). Wireless doesn't work, but that's OK, it's not actually portable anyway.

    Any idea what is optimal hardware for ArcaOS? A while back I bought a license and ran it for a while on a system here, but I didn't really explore its capabilities. I am curious how beefy of an OS/2 system can be built, and how many nodes of a BBS could be run (obviously there's a lot of factors involved).

    I'm digging PCBoard running on the Thinkpad (other than the
    constant noise, lol), and ArcaOS supports SMB and VNC, so it's easy to access file shares and do remote admin stuff.

    With SMB and VNC that seems convenient. Is there an SSH server for OS/2?

    So far I've got the 4 DOS experiments:

    1) ProxMox (hit a wall with NDIS2 driver tho and DHCP tho)
    2) Dosbian (TBD - high hopes!!)
    3) ArcaOS (working with OS/2 native BBS packages, real hardware)
    4) Physical DOS machine (I'm cobbling together with an RTL8139 and VGA)

    Looks like Dosbian is based on DOSBox, so I think that seems promising - I have had pretty good luck with DOSBox-X, though I am still working out some issues. (clock skew, and MSCLIENT needing to be disconnected and reconnected - but I am not sure the MSCLIENT issue is related to DOSBox, it happens in 86Box also.)

    I looked a bit at 86Box, it could be a promising option I think, right now it doesn't have telnet softmodem built in, but that could be worked around (or added to 86Box). I haven't used 86Box enough to know if there are other issues that would pop up.

    I *really* like physical machines, but that PC a mini-tower and just can't see myself building multiple machines for this!

    I agree with the love for physical machines, and also agree it's just so hard to run enough machines to meet our ambitions. It really is convenient to be able to use VNC and other tools for remote management also.

    Hoping I can crack ProMox or Dosbian with RINGDOWN on the front-end :)

    The telnet ringdown server definitely needs to be put through its paces!


    Chris/akacastor

    --- Maximus 3.01
    * Origin: Another Millennium - Canada - another.tel (21:1/162)
  • From j0HNNY a1PHA@21:4/158 to AKAcastor on Wed Feb 28 23:55:16 2024
    Any idea what is optimal hardware for ArcaOS? A while back I bought a license and ran it for a while on a system here, but I didn't really
    explore its capabilities. I am curious how beefy of an OS/2 system
    can be built, and how many nodes of a BBS could be run (obviously
    there's a lot of factors involved).

    It's got some specific requirements, but nothing really daunting: https://www.arcanoae.com/wiki/arcaos/technical-specifications/

    Maybe putting it through the paces in a VM could shine a light, I've got
    6 nodes setup for PCBOARD on physical hardware (circa 2005), and I
    guarantee there will only be 0-1 used ay any time, LOL.


    With SMB and VNC that seems convenient. Is there an SSH server for
    OS/2?

    I'm using the NetDrive plugin, and it has SFTP/SSH. I've read that someone
    got OpemSSH working on ArcaOS as well...

    I looked a bit at 86Box, it could be a promising option I think, right
    now it doesn't have telnet softmodem built in, but that could be
    worked around (or added to 86Box). I haven't used 86Box enough to
    know if there are other issues that would pop up.

    I see 86Box pop up quite frequently now, I've never used it. the telnet softmodem is just really nice in DosBOX-X and Staging!

    I agree with the love for physical machines, and also agree it's just
    so hard to run enough machines to meet our ambitions. It really is convenient to be able to use VNC and other tools for remote management
    also.

    Chuckling -- just loaded FreeDOS bare metal on my "modern" PC (Asus Z97 motherboard, Intel i7 - LOL) and it shows "953,234 Mega bytes free" -
    don't think i'll need that much space :)


    |08.|05j|13A|08.


    --- Talisman v0.53-dev (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: R3tr0/X BBS :: retrox.us:1992 (21:4/158)