Author Topic: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2  (Read 1561 times)

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 195
  • Posts: 2720
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2020, 04:46:34 pm »
It's GCC 9, the Watcom linker etc. from Yum.
I put "-g" on CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but in the Watcom debuggers and the IBM C Compilers debugger, all I get is assembly. All my attempts to select sources, failed for me.

You're compiling with at least LDFLAGS=-Zomf ? You also have to use an IBM debugger as the Watcom won't work with the STAB debug format.

Tuure Linden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2020, 05:32:16 pm »
I was able to install and run Windows 95 under Dosbox in ArcaOS 5.0.1 some months ago, BUT it was really unusable. It usually crashed after a few seconds after the desktop was loaded.

Ibrahim Hakeem

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 3
  • -Receive: 4
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2020, 06:08:53 pm »
I was able to install and run Windows 95 under Dosbox in ArcaOS 5.0.1 some months ago, BUT it was really unusable. It usually crashed after a few seconds after the desktop was loaded.

With this bit of info in mind, could it be it that this whole situation is due to a regression which gradually grew more complicated? The ECSoft/2 page's screenshots show it running under Ecomstation, perhaps implying it's been a long time since it was totally stable?

Jochen Schäfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2020, 08:41:07 am »
I was able to install and run Windows 95 under Dosbox in ArcaOS 5.0.1 some months ago, BUT it was really unusable. It usually crashed after a few seconds after the desktop was loaded.
Do you remember which version, you used back then?

Jochen Schäfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2020, 08:47:45 am »
It's GCC 9, the Watcom linker etc. from Yum.
I put "-g" on CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but in the Watcom debuggers and the IBM C Compilers debugger, all I get is assembly. All my attempts to select sources, failed for me.

You're compiling with at least LDFLAGS=-Zomf ? You also have to use an IBM debugger as the Watcom won't work with the STAB debug format.
Yes, and some other -Z. I appended my config.site. When wanting to debug, I switch to a debug config, where I added -g to C(XX)FLAGS and LDFLAGS and removed -O2. Do I have to add something more?

Paul Smedley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 27
  • -Receive: 93
  • Posts: 694
  • Karma: +24/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2020, 11:01:43 am »
It's GCC 9, the Watcom linker etc. from Yum.
I put "-g" on CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but in the Watcom debuggers and the IBM C Compilers debugger, all I get is assembly. All my attempts to select sources, failed for me.

You're compiling with at least LDFLAGS=-Zomf ? You also have to use an IBM debugger as the Watcom won't work with the STAB debug format.
Yes, and some other -Z. I appended my config.site. When wanting to debug, I switch to a debug config, where I added -g to C(XX)FLAGS and LDFLAGS and removed -O2. Do I have to add something more?

Make sure you don't have -s in ldflags - that will strip the debug symbols you added with -g

Jochen Schäfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2020, 01:48:46 pm »
Damn it. I knew, I'd miss something.
Thanks Paul.

EDIT: It worked.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 02:00:21 pm by Jochen Schäfer »

Tuure Linden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2020, 04:42:10 pm »
Do you remember which version, you used back then?

I'm afraid that I don't. I think that ArcaOS was 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 and Dosbox was the latest build available on OS/2. Windows 95 might have been the OSR2 version. It was almost a year ago....

Jochen Schäfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2020, 10:13:46 pm »
I could boot from a FreeDOS boot disk. So, I guess, the boot in itself should work.
Until now, I couldn't figure out why the Windows 95 boot image doesn't work. It seems, that the image is not mounted anymore after boot.
The missing os message comes form the bootsector of the image.

Jochen Schäfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2020, 07:48:00 pm »
I did some tests on Linux with an version of Dosbox installed through the package system and the newest source code compilation. With the packaged version, Windows 95 boots and with the newest one, it does not.
Interesting enough, the FreeDOS works with both versions.

I think, we have a regression here. I will try to issue an bug report.