Searching \ for '[OT] Getting old screen savers to work in XP' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=getting+old+screen
Search entire site for: 'Getting old screen savers to work in XP'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Getting old screen savers to work in XP'
2006\10\26@072215 by Pearce, AB (Alan)

face picon face
Does anyone know how to get old screensavers to work in Win XP? With
older versions of windows it was sufficient to stick the SCR file in the
windows\system or system32 directory, and the screensaver selector would
find it and one could select it on the menu. For some reason XP now
looks elsewhere for the file names.

Can anyone help me register this as a screen saver?

TIA

2006\10\26@081543 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
It works fine for me, also you can place your saver in WINDOWS directory
itself with the .SCR extention. However, you have to quit from the Display
Properties dialog box and re-launch it to see the new ones.

Tamas


On 26/10/06, Pearce, AB (Alan) <spam_OUTA.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\10\26@092733 by Pearce, AB (Alan)

face picon face

> It works fine for me, also you can place your saver in
> WINDOWS directory
> itself with the .SCR extention. However, you have to quit
> from the Display
> Properties dialog box and re-launch it to see the new ones.
>
> Tamas

Yeah, been through the loop, but it still doesn't want to show in the
drop down box for selection. Tried in the windows directory as well, but
still no show.

2006\10\26@094347 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 26 October 2006 12:22
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: [OT] Getting old screen savers to work in XP
>
>
>Does anyone know how to get old screensavers to work in Win
>XP? With older versions of windows it was sufficient to stick
>the SCR file in the windows\system or system32 directory, and
>the screensaver selector would find it and one could select it
>on the menu. For some reason XP now looks elsewhere for the file names.
>
>Can anyone help me register this as a screen saver?

Alan,

If it's an old 16bit screen saver (i.e. 16 bit code, not 16 bit colour depth!) then you are out of luck AFAIK, XP will not run these.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\10\27@041720 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>If it's an old 16bit screen saver (i.e. 16 bit code, not 16 bit colour
>depth!)
>then you are out of luck AFAIK, XP will not run these.

OK, I believe at least one of the ones I was trying is 16 bit code. The one
I really wanted to run is probably 16 bit as well. Shame, but that is the
way things go I guess.

Thanks

2006\10\27@051943 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:16:10 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >If it's an old 16bit screen saver (i.e. 16 bit code, not 16 bit colour
> >depth!)
> >then you are out of luck AFAIK, XP will not run these.
>
> OK, I believe at least one of the ones I was trying is 16 bit code. The one
> I really wanted to run is probably 16 bit as well. Shame, but that is the
> way things go I guess.

No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just stay
with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years, which reduces M$'s profits.  One of the many reasons that I don't use their
software unless I have to (I do like their keyboards and mice, though!).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\10\27@053752 by slippyr4

picon face
That's a bit of an unwarranted stab at microsoft.

Backwards compatibility is an exceptionally hard thing to get right.
The main reason windows is such unreliable bloatware is because it
retains backward compatibility for almost every API you can think of.

With 32 bit windows, some older APIs have been dropped, but these are
almost exclusively ones that really aren't that important - hence loss
of support for 16bit screen savers.

It's the same with IA32 (and even x64) processor architecture. Intels
chip designs would be much better if they dropped backwards
compatibility with legacy x86 architecture and made a new architecture
from scratch. They actually did this, and called it itanium. Sadly, it
didn't catch on.

On 27/10/06, Howard Winter <.....HDRWKILLspamspam.....h2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\10\27@060617 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
That's why AMD's 64 bit processors are more popular... Compatibility is
important, but I believe an emulation is better than a hardware / OS
compatibility. Look at Apple: MacOSX is not compatible with OS9, but there
is an emulation for the old softwares (I am not sure abut that in the Intel
platformed Macs though...). Once Apple lost the battle against IBM when
Apple III was too slow and Apple Lisa (and later on Mac) was not compatible
with Apple II (and also because they closed the door to make cheap clones in
Taiwan and Bulgaria, but that's another story).

Personally I would choose the slower but compatible computer against the
faster but incompatible one. I think that's the reason most people do not
want to change to Linux as it even with the windows emulation is very
different and the probability that the old software will not run on it is
high.

Tamas




On 27/10/06, slippyr4 <EraseMEslippyr4spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\10\27@073457 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big
> thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just
> stay with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years,
> which reduces M$'s profits.  

Are you sure that a compiled binary from ten years ago for any OS that is
not stuck in time would run on a current version? Of course, if you take
OS/2, the programs still run, but then, if you take Win98, they also still
run.

I'm not sure, but there are probably more MS-DOS programs that run on WinXP
than there are MS-DOS programs that run on OS/2, no? :)

Gerhard

2006\10\27@080031 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Actually OS/2 was very good at running DOS apps even graphical ones -- I
have used to use it to develop my DOS stuff on it as it was the ONLY
operating system that could reliably run multiple tasks on a PC by that time
(...and Xenix and SCO but they were not compatible with DOS at all). It was
years before Win95 or the NT4 and IBM made the biggest mistake on marketing
to not to populate it with full power. They had only the "if you really want
to buy it we can sell it for you" strategy.

BTW, Win3x (16bit) applications were very stable on OS/2 as well (each Win
app could run in a separated environment which was very unique that time).
Also you could run OS/2 1.3 applications (16bit) on Windows. That was the
last version Microsoft worked on OS/2 together with IBM so the Windows was a
real one from Microsoft and the PC-DOS box also was a real MS-DOS with only
some minor changes.

Tamas


On 27/10/06, Gerhard Fiedler <@spam@listsKILLspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\10\27@094952 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just stay
> with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years, which reduces M$'s profits.  One of the many reasons that I don't use their
> software unless I have to (I do like their keyboards and mice, though!).

You are kidding right?

Most people who know me know that I'm VERY biased against Microsoft and
I try to use as few of their products as rarely as possible (Fedora Core
6 came out a few days ago, I'm going to try it on my laptop to see if I
can finally drop WinXP on it).

That said, your statement is just false. Out of all companies out there
in the software world, Microsoft's software has been one of THE BEST for
backwards compatibility. WinXP still runs quite a bit of DOS software
written 2 decades ago. A floppy written on a DOS3.1 machine will be read
perfectly fine on the latest windows machine.

Now, there is no doubt that one of the number one reasons Microsoft is
where it is is because it has so fully embraced backwards compatibility.
It is also without a doubt in my mind that the reason Windows has so
many problems is at least in part due to the backwards compatibility.

The constant battle is HOW far backwards to aim. You can't aim all the
way back to the CPM/8080 days, but you can't stop being able to run
win95 apps. It's a VERY delicate balance, and I'm sure there are many
man hours used at Microsoft trying to decide what can be dropped.

Frankly, running a 16bit screen saver is a good thing to drop IMHO.

TTYL

2006\10\27@113441 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
>  
>> No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just stay
>> with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years, which reduces M$'s profits.  One of the many reasons that I don't use their
>> software unless I have to (I do like their keyboards and mice, though!).
>>    
>
>  
well, _I_ don't use their software much because it is so prone to
viruses and hacks.

{Quote hidden}

Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
applications. In fact, it won't
even load the 16-bit EXE any more. Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
runs on WinXP after the
ravages of the latest XP updates.

--Bob

{Quote hidden}

2006\10\27@123517 by William Couture

face picon face
On 10/27/06, Bob Axtell <KILLspamengineerKILLspamspamneomailbox.com> wrote:
> > That said, your statement is just false. Out of all companies out there
> > in the software world, Microsoft's software has been one of THE BEST for
> > backwards compatibility. WinXP still runs quite a bit of DOS software
> > written 2 decades ago.
>
> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
> applications. In fact, it won't even load the 16-bit EXE any more.
> Identify _ONE_ DOS application that runs on WinXP after the ravages
> of the latest XP updates.

System: WinXp, SP2

Used Daily:
 * PKZIP 2.04G
 * DeSmet C compiler (several versions)
 * SEE editor
 * Norton Utilities (version 3.0).
 * Various random utilities by other people.

What are you running that doesn't work?  What are the symptoms?

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2006\10\27@132016 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu On Behalf Of Bob Axtell
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:31 AM
>
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > That said, your statement is just false. Out of all companies out there
> > in the software world, Microsoft's software has been one of THE BEST for
> > backwards compatibility. WinXP still runs quite a bit of DOS software
> > written 2 decades ago.
>
> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
applications.
> In fact, it won't> even load the 16-bit EXE any more. Identify _ONE_ DOS
> application that runs on WinXP after the ravages of the latest XP updates.
>
> --Bob

My experience has been like Herb's, Win XP runs all the old DOS applications
I've tried. Just tried all the ones I have on this new fully updated XP box
at the main office and they work.
WordStar 5.5
OrCAD V4 (1993)
Qbasic
Dosshell
DanCAD3D (1986 3D CAD for DOS)
VB for DOS (and EXE's created with it)

What applications don't run?

Also I've found XP runs the 16bit Win3.x apps I have around, MPLAB 5.3 with
ICD1 and PicStart Plus and, Protel PCB v1.1 (with parallel port dongle).

Paul  

2006\10\27@134439 by peter green

flavicon
face
> It's the same with IA32 (and even x64) processor architecture. Intels
> chip designs would be much better if they dropped backwards
> compatibility with legacy x86 architecture and made a new architecture
> from scratch. They actually did this, and called it itanium. Sadly, it
> didn't catch on.
better is subjective, from what i gather the itanium was good for tight
scientific code but the compilers that were availible did a poor job of
getting general purpose code to run fast on it.

also iirc the first itanium had a horriblly screwed up cache design.

yes the barely usable backwards compatibility was a major part of itaniums
failing but it certainly wasn't the only reason.

2006\10\27@134748 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
> applications. In fact, it won't even load the 16-bit EXE any more.
> Identify _ONE_ DOS application that runs on WinXP after the ravages of
> the latest XP updates.

There's an edit.com ("MS-DOS Editor, version 2.0.026, (c) Microsoft 1995")
that seems to come with WinXP. I also have still around (don't really know
why) Cedar Island Edit v1.2, (c) Cedar Island Software 1991,1992. I also
have still an old version of PKZIP (2.04g, 02-01-93). I have a Borland
Turbo GREP 5.5 from 1992,1998. There are probably others, especially if I
start digging out old floppies :)

I don't use either regularly (replaced by better alternatives), but they
all seem to run fine. Within their limits, of course -- don't expect
support for LFN or Unicode or other such hypermodern inventions :)

If your WinXP doesn't load any 16bit applications, it may be that you have
a service disabled that's required for that. If I'm not mistaken, 16bit
support is handled by a service that gets loaded on demand. That's why it
usually takes longer to load the first 16bit app -- after that, the service
is already loaded. I don't remember which one that is, though.

Gerhard

2006\10\27@135950 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:
{Quote hidden}

The last time I checked, WinXP would not run any of Inno's 16bit install
programs. Is my motherboard bad,
or was there an update that fixed that? I am, indeed, totally amazed.  
Will TP5 run under it? it never ran under
Win2K, I guess they improved it when they made WinXP...? I won't cringe
so much when I see B Gates' face
(reaching back to check my wallet to make sure it is there...)


I guess it will be a testing weekend. The loss of DOS TP5 was a cruel
blow. If it works, it will be a wonderful
weekend. I HOPE I am wrong on this....




2006\10\27@140405 by slippyr4

picon face
Bob,

Are you using the program compatibilty options? That's often necessary.

jon

On 27/10/06, Bob Axtell <TakeThisOuTengineerEraseMEspamspam_OUTneomailbox.com> wrote:
> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
> applications. In fact, it won't
> even load the 16-bit EXE any more. Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
> runs on WinXP after the
> ravages of the latest XP updates.
>

2006\10\27@141709 by peter green

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Alan B. Pearce
> Sent: 27 October 2006 09:16
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Getting old screen savers to work in XP
>
>
> >If it's an old 16bit screen saver (i.e. 16 bit code, not 16 bit colour
> >depth!)
> >then you are out of luck AFAIK, XP will not run these.
>
> OK, I believe at least one of the ones I was trying is 16 bit
> code. The one
> I really wanted to run is probably 16 bit as well. Shame, but that is the
> way things go I guess.
assuming XP can still run the screensaver as a normal app you could always
write a stub of some sort.

2006\10\27@141957 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 08:31 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> >  
> >> No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just stay
> >> with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years, which reduces M$'s profits.  One of the many reasons that I don't use their
> >> software unless I have to (I do like their keyboards and mice, though!).
> >>    
> >
> >  
> well, _I_ don't use their software much because it is so prone to
> viruses and hacks.

As odd as it sounds, the viruses and hacks never concerned me much. I've
been using windows for MANY years and have never had a virus or hack
affect my box. My windows work machine (mostly for compiles, my main
work machine, the one I'm typing on now is a Linux box) has had a
resident virus scanner from day one (IT enforced) and it's never caught
a thing.

For me the problem was the bugs/instability. I became more and more
annoyed with the little "quirks" I had to work around in my daily work.
That and the fact that installing something was always like crossing a
mine field, you never knew when an install would screw something else
up.

> > That said, your statement is just false. Out of all companies out there
> > in the software world, Microsoft's software has been one of THE BEST for
> > backwards compatibility. WinXP still runs quite a bit of DOS software
> > written 2 decades ago.
> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
> applications. In fact, it won't
> even load the 16-bit EXE any more. Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
> runs on WinXP after the
> ravages of the latest XP updates.

Well the dos apps I have here are all in house custom dos apps, so I
can't really list them.

Note that any dos app that accesses hardware directly won't work. As
long as the DOS app is well behaved and uses the APIs available to it
(i.e. BIOS and DOS functions only) it will likely work fine under XP.

As an example I tried the following app
http://www.ntfs.com/products.htm

Note that Windows complains that the app will not be able to access the
hardware directly and as a result may not run correctly, but aside from
that warning the app starts up fine, at least on my box.

It is the same with "windows" apps from the win3.1 and win95/98/me days,
as long as they don't access hardware directly, and use "normal" win/dos
API calls, they should run perfectly fine on the latest winXP box.

TTYL

2006\10\27@142145 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 08:31 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> >  
> >> No, it's the way Microsoft goes!  Backward compatibility used to be a big thing in computing, but M$ discovered that it means that people can just stay
> >> with what they have, rather than upgrading every couple of years, which reduces M$'s profits.  One of the many reasons that I don't use their
> >> software unless I have to (I do like their keyboards and mice, though!).
> >>    
> >
> >  
> well, _I_ don't use their software much because it is so prone to
> viruses and hacks.

As odd as it sounds, the viruses and hacks never concerned me much. I've
been using windows for MANY years and have never had a virus or hack
affect my box. My windows work machine (mostly for compiles, my main
work machine, the one I'm typing on now is a Linux box) has had a
resident virus scanner from day one (IT enforced) and it's never caught
a thing.

For me the problem was the bugs/instability. I became more and more
annoyed with the little "quirks" I had to work around in my daily work.
That and the fact that installing something was always like crossing a
mine field, you never knew when an install would screw something else
up.

> > That said, your statement is just false. Out of all companies out there
> > in the software world, Microsoft's software has been one of THE BEST for
> > backwards compatibility. WinXP still runs quite a bit of DOS software
> > written 2 decades ago.
> Herb, I have 3 WinXP's here, and not a ONE can run any of my DOS6
> applications. In fact, it won't
> even load the 16-bit EXE any more. Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
> runs on WinXP after the
> ravages of the latest XP updates.

Well the dos apps I have here are all in house custom dos apps, so I
can't really list them.

Note that any dos app that accesses hardware directly won't work. As
long as the DOS app is well behaved and uses the APIs available to it
(i.e. BIOS and DOS functions only) it will likely work fine under XP.

As an example I tried the following app
http://www.ntfs.com/products.htm

Note that Windows complains that the app will not be able to access the
hardware directly and as a result may not run correctly, but aside from
that warning the app starts up fine, at least on my box.

It is the same with "windows" apps from the win3.1 and win95/98/me days,
as long as they don't access hardware directly, and use "normal" win/dos
API calls, they should run perfectly fine on the latest winXP box.

TTYL

2006\10\27@151301 by John Pfaff

picon face
We have a couple of customers still running Windows 3.11, so we use VB4
to generate a 16-bit version of our application for them.  It works just
find with Windows XP, and the executables run just fine in Windows 3.11.

Paul Hutchinson wrote:
>> {Original Message removed}

2006\10\27@152853 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
> runs on WinXP after the
> ravages of the latest XP updates.


Old dos orcad for one.. I havent' had many that wouldn't go.

2006\10\27@205618 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
NONE (not one) application written under DOS6+ by TP5 (Turbo Pascal 5.5
for DOS)- which all work
fine under a DOS system- will work under WinXP. I just ran thru about 50
that I knew were not hardware-related.
They would give me a screen OK, but none of the keys or F-keys respond.
I can't even EXIT the program.

Its like I am living on another planet... You guys are, like, putting me
on, right?

--Bob

Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\10\27@222222 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

> not one application written under DOS6+ by TP5 (Turbo Pascal 5.5
> for DOS) ... will work under WinXP. I just ran thru about 50 ...
> but none of the keys or F-keys respond. I can't even EXIT the program.
>
> Its like I am living on another planet... You guys are, like, putting
> me
> on, right?
>
So you could be hit by as little as ONE library function in TPS
that isn't working right under WXP?

BillW

2006\10\27@224121 by William Couture

face picon face
On 10/27/06, Bob Axtell <EraseMEengineerspamneomailbox.com> wrote:

> NONE (not one) application written under DOS6+ by TP5 (Turbo Pascal 5.5
> for DOS)- which all work
> fine under a DOS system- will work under WinXP. I just ran thru about 50
> that I knew were not hardware-related.
> They would give me a screen OK, but none of the keys or F-keys respond.
> I can't even EXIT the program.

Hmmm... that rings a small bell.

I was trying to track down why a program didn't seem to work right
under a DOS Window, and I found that it was Windows trying to be
too helpful.

When the program was doing a BIOS call to see if a character was
waiting, the "BIOS" seemed to be telling itself:
  Since the keyboards in existance when this BIOS call was originally
  written didn't have all these extended functions, I'm sure the program
  doesn't know how to handle them, so I'll just be helpful and remove
  them so the program isn't confused.

Of course, since *ALL* of the function keys now reply with an extended
code sequence, not the original code sequence from the IBM-XT keyboard,
*ALL* of the function keys are "missing" when you call BIOS.

Interstingly, a DOS call does not have that problem (IIRC).

What I wound up doing was the "later", 101-key keyboard BIOS call
to get the char, and if that failed, then I fell back to the original BIOS
call.  So, a "check for character and get it if one is waiting" becomes:
    XOR  AL,AL
    MOV  AH,11H     ; 101-key keyboard "check for char"
    INT    16H
    JC     OLD_BIOS
    JNZ   GET_CHAR
OLD_BIOS:
    MOV  AH,1
    INT    16H
    JNZ    GET_CHAR
    XOR   AX,AX          ; no char waiting
    JMP   GET_CHAR_DONE
GET_CHAR:
    MOV   AH,0
    INT      16H
    OR      AL,AL     ; extended keypress (FN key or such)
    JNZ     GET_CHAR_NORMAL
    MOV   AL,AH     ; scancode to AL
    MOV   AH,1       ; flag extended key
    JMP   GET_CHAR_DONE
GET_CHAR_NORMAL:
    MOV   AH,0       ; just a normal character
GET_CHAR_DONE:

which works fine under any version of DOS with any BIOS.

I'm wondering if you can write a trivial TSR to "fix" TP5 programs.
Something like:
  INT16HERE:
        CMP    AH,1         ; fn = check for keypress?
        JNE     CONTINUE_INT16
        MOV   AH,11H      ; change to 101-key check for keypress
  CONTINUE_INT16:
        JMP    FAR OLD_INT16_VECTOR

> Its like I am living on another planet... You guys are, like, putting me
> on, right?

No, we've just been lucky -- we haven't had "BIOS" (not the REAL BIOS,
it's part of the XP kernel) try to "HELP" us.

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2006\10\27@224704 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu On Behalf Of Bob Axtell
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:56 PM
>
> NONE (not one) application written under DOS6+ by TP5 (Turbo Pascal 5.5
> for DOS)- which all work
> fine under a DOS system- will work under WinXP. I just ran thru about 50
> that I knew were not hardware-related.
> They would give me a screen OK, but none of the keys or F-keys respond.
> I can't even EXIT the program.
>
> Its like I am living on another planet... You guys are, like, putting me
> on, right?

Well it sounds to me like Turbo Pascal 5.5 apps are incompatible with WinXP.
I've never had any application written in TP5 so, that would explain why
I've never had a problem running old DOS applications on WinNT/2k/XP. I know
the ancient 3D CAD program in the list was written in ASM, I think WordStar
and OrCad were also ASM, and I suspect the MS apps where written with MS
tools.

Paul

>
> --Bob
>

2006\10\28@035531 by Tony Smith

picon face
> NONE (not one) application written under DOS6+ by TP5 (Turbo
> Pascal 5.5 for DOS)- which all work fine under a DOS system-
> will work under WinXP. I just ran thru about 50 that I knew
> were not hardware-related.
> They would give me a screen OK, but none of the keys or
> F-keys respond.
> I can't even EXIT the program.
>
> Its like I am living on another planet... You guys are, like,
> putting me on, right?
>
> --Bob


The only problem I ever had with TP was the bug where it crashed on PCs that
were too fast, there was a patch issued for that.  That was in 1999, it
would crash on 500+ CPUs IIRC.  (Was doing Y2K work on a 20+ year old
system.  It pre-dated DOS!)

Borland have been giving TP away for free recently, I don't know what
version.  Ok, I looked it up - TP v5.5.  Nobody seems to be having problems,
so a dodgy 3rd party library perhaps?

Tony

2006\10\28@051239 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
William Couture wrote:
{Quote hidden}

That is an interesting observation. Thanks for the heads-up.
I might tinker with that as soon as some time is freed up.

--Bob

2006\10\28@051408 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Tony Smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I am gonna find out. Thanks!

--Bob

2006\10\28@060159 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I am not sure about TP 5.5, however, for version 7 there was a runtime error
200 thingy on fast computers. If this is what you were talking about there
are couple of solutions for that. One of them patches the TPL itself so you
can recompile your project or you can patch the executable so no
recompilation needed. Some of the executables compressed with exepackers so
that you might need to unpack first then apply the patch and repack or leave
it as it is.

http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pas-r200.htm
http://www.codecomments.com/archive353-2005-4-463168.html

anyway, google on it:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=turbo+pascal+tpl+patch+runtime+error+200+fast+cpu&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Tamas



On 28/10/06, Bob Axtell <RemoveMEengineerTakeThisOuTspamspamneomailbox.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\10\28@093953 by Dave Lag

picon face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

>>Does anyone know how to get old screensavers to work in Win
>>XP? With older versions of windows it was sufficient to stick
>>the SCR file in the windows\system or system32 directory, and
>>the screensaver selector would find it and one could select it
>>on the menu. For some reason XP now looks elsewhere for the file names.
>>
>>Can anyone help me register this as a screen saver?
>
> Alan,
>
> If it's an old 16bit screen saver (i.e. 16 bit code, not 16 bit colour depth!) then you are out of luck AFAIK, XP will not run these.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike

The best screen saver of all time ( IMHO ) was the Sierra scrantic
"guy on the island" . Folks have hacked THAT work on XP.
 soon time for him to put up the christmas lights....

2006\10\29@080330 by Pearce, AB (Alan)

face picon face
part 1 522 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded quoted-printable)

>The best screen saver of all time ( IMHO ) was the Sierra scrantic
>-"guy on the island" . Folks have hacked THAT work on XP.
>  soon time for him to put up the christmas lights....

Ahh, yes, Johnny Castaway, that is another one that would be good to get going again.
I was always intrigued that it knew when Christmas, New Year and halloween happened, but never easter, and yet I didn't think that was so hard to work out, despite its variable dates.


part 2 3422 bytes content-type:application/ms-tnef; (decode)

part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2006\10\29@224726 by Robert Ammerman

picon face

> The constant battle is HOW far backwards to aim. You can't aim all the
> way back to the CPM/8080 days, but you can't stop being able to run
> win95 apps. It's a VERY delicate balance, and I'm sure there are many
> man hours used at Microsoft trying to decide what can be dropped.

I still run CPM code and much DOS code on my WinXP box.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2006\10\30@043350 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Identify _ONE_ DOS application that
> runs on WinXP after the
> ravages of the latest XP updates.

Windows Terminal and Clock from Win 3.1 both work admirably on my XP systems
with IT enforced updates.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...