Alt-Enter Doesn't Window DOS Graphics in XP (Used to work in NT & W2K)

[Doug White]

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.

The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &
"windowed" mode when a program is running in the DOS emulator. In NT &
W2K, this worked independent of whether the program was displaying text
or graphics. The graphics screen would be "frozen" when windowed, but
you could use Alt-Print Screen to copy the graphics to the clipboard,
which allowed the resulting image to be pasted into Word, PowerPoint etc.
for documentation & reports. I have verified that this problem occurs on
a variety of XP machines, with very different grqphics systems, so I
don't believe it is the hardware. I have also tried all of the various
"compatibility" modes. I have also investigated a number of 3rd party
screen capture utilities. None of them work with DOS graphics UNLESS you
can use Alt-Enter to window the program. Although I believe there was
something there a while back, MS's "knowledge base" seems to have
developed Alzheimer's, because there is no mention of this issue that I
could find. A thorough scan of old Usenet postings shows that A) I am
not alone, and B) nobody has a fix.

Because the programs work OK in XP, there is no point in going to a dual
boot system. The feature I am missing is unique to running DOS (or a
DOS emulator) in a windows environment. Short of downgrading to W2K
(which the IT people at work won't likely let me do), I appear to be
stuck.

My questions are:

1) Has anyone else managed to get this to work in XP? If you are brave,
I can send you a small program that will display a DOS graphics file to
test with.

2) Does anyone have any suggestions on possible ways to convince XP to
behave properly in this regard? It is still possible there is some
setting someplace would allow this to work, but I sure can't find it.

3) Are there 3rd party DOS emulators that would possibly work?

4) Is there any way to get Microsoft's attention about this issue? All
of my machines have OEM XP, which means Microsoft won't talk to me, and
Dell & IBM support just blame it on Micosoft & say there is nothing they
can do. I'd even be willing to pay $35 of my own money to place a
support call if I thought it would do any good. I work in the US
defense industry, and there is a war on. I'm trying to save lives, and I
find it REALLY annoying that Microsoft has the resources to code up
talking paperclips but won't fix things that prevent people from getting
real work done.

Thanks for any suggestions!

Doug White

 

[Richard Bonner]

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.

The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &
"windowed" mode when a program is running in the DOS emulator. In NT &
W2K, this worked independent of whether the program was displaying text
or graphics.

I have verified that this problem occurs on
a variety of XP machines, with very different grqphics systems, so I
don't believe it is the hardware.

My questions are:

3) Are there 3rd party DOS emulators that would possibly work?

*** You might try DOS BOX. A link is at:

http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/Websites.html

4) Is there any way to get Microsoft's attention about this issue?

*** No. They would be very happy if everyone just forgot about DOS and
all its wonderful programs & utilities so that all would use their
monopolistic system.

All
of my machines have OEM XP, which means Microsoft won't talk to me, and
Dell & IBM support just blame it on Micosoft & say there is nothing they
can do. I'd even be willing to pay $35 of my own money to place a
support call if I thought it would do any good. I work in the US
defense industry, and there is a war on.

*** What? I thought you guys all went to Linux.

I'm trying to save lives, and I
find it REALLY annoying that Microsoft has the resources to code up
talking paperclips but won't fix things that prevent people from getting
real work done.

Doug White

*** I doubt they are interested in lives - only in making more money
and screwing up as many competing systems as possible. To that end, I have
been getting e-mails from Windows users for several years now where the
entire e-mail text is on one line. They seem to have changed the code for
return/linefeed. They also changed the apostrophe code, as apostrophes are
now starting to show as question marks. )-:

It's really time for Microsoft to be broken up as was ATT.

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

 

[Charles Dye]

The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &
"windowed" mode when a program is running in the DOS emulator. In NT &
W2K, this worked independent of whether the program was displaying text
or graphics. The graphics screen would be "frozen" when windowed, but
you could use Alt-Print Screen to copy the graphics to the clipboard,
which allowed the resulting image to be pasted into Word, PowerPoint etc.
for documentation & reports. I have verified that this problem occurs on
a variety of XP machines, with very different grqphics systems, so I
don't believe it is the hardware. I have also tried all of the various
"compatibility" modes. I have also investigated a number of 3rd party
screen capture utilities. None of them work with DOS graphics UNLESS you
can use Alt-Enter to window the program.

Have you tried a virtual machine system like Bochs or Virtual PC? They
generally run in windows; it should be possible to Alt-PrtScrn them.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

Alt + Enter goes to Full Screen when running edit.com in command.com.

I just opened command.com, then edit, Alt + Enter, Print Scrn and pasted it
into a blank Word doc.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

 

[Doug White]

Keywords:

Alt + Enter goes to Full Screen when running edit.com in command.com.

I just opened command.com, then edit, Alt + Enter, Print Scrn and pasted it
into a blank Word doc.

Edit.com is not a GRAPHICS program. Although it looks a bit graphical,
what graphics it has are done with line drawings text characters. Text
screens have always worked OK. One way to tell is whether the program
actually functions in a window. DOS grahics windows (at least in W2K)
have a note in the window header bar that says "Frozen",and they won't do
anything until you go back to fullscreen.

Thanks for trying.

Doug White

 

[HeyBub]

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both
Windows NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I
rely on when they came out with XP.

[...]

Try putting a formatted floppy in the drive. I'm not kidding.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

Obviously you know more about MS-DOS programs than I do.

I only have a couple of 16-bit applications that I could even try this with.

Move into the 21st century and buy a 32- or 64-bit program. I would
certainly think that something would be available, microwave technology is
going to be around for a while.

[[Environment Subsystems
One of the key design goals of Windows NT was compatibility with existing
applications. If Microsoft had decided to ignore this issue and concentrate
solely on performance, most (if not all) of the existing Windows and DOS
applications would have become useless. Because this would have meant
purchasing new applications, business might have opted to move completely
away from Microsoft.

While still improving performance considerably, Microsoft was able to
accomplish the goal of compatibility by implementing a set of operating
system "environment emulators." These are the so-called environment
subsystems that form the intermediate layer between user applications and
the core of the NT operating system. Because of module design of the
operating system, Windows NT is capable of supporting Windows/DOS, OS/2, and
POSIX applications.]]
From…
Windows NT Basics
Pub. Date: December 1999
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/evaluate/featfunc/windowsn.mspx

Microsoft did what they could to support MS-DOS programs when they first
came out with NT 3.1 in 1993. Considering that MS-DOS was originally
released in 1981, Microsoft stopped development in 2000 and support ended
November 30, 2001.

If you're not gonna use something like DOSBox...
DOSBox, an x86 emulator with DOS
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

Then...

Troubleshooting MS-DOS-Based Programs in Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314106

How to Troubleshoot 16-Bit Windows Programs in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314495

How to Run Legacy Applications Using Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/lgcyapps.mspx

Lots of good 16-bit info here...
Appendix D - Running Nonnative Applications in Windows 2000 Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/Windows2000Pro/reskit/part8/proch36.mspx

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

 

[Paul Bartlett]

[most trimmed]

*** I doubt they are interested in lives - only in making more money
and screwing up as many competing systems as possible. To that end, I have
been getting e-mails from Windows users for several years now where the
entire e-mail text is on one line. They seem to have changed the code for
return/linefeed. They also changed the apostrophe code, as apostrophes are
now starting to show as question marks. )-:

Richard, surely you know that most MS Windoozy software has
gone to a "paragraph" format in which a paragraph is a single physical
line and that it is up to the displaying program to wrap the visible
lines around appropriately for viewing.

As for the apostrophe business -- double quotation marks are the
same -- that is due to MS ignoring international standards. (IBM did
the same years ago. Standards? What do you mean, standards? We are
IBM.) The ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) character set is a default character set
for many applications. That standard has some character positions
undefined, so MS, in their infinite wisdom (or arrogance) decided to
put some characters in those undefined positions, including "soft"
apostrophes and quotation marks. The real irritation is that so many
of their mail and news agents continue to mark the headers as
ISO-8859-1 when in fact it is their idiosyncratic Windows-1252
character set. MS software simply ignores the incorrect headers and
displays things the way MS wants it displayed, on the assumption that
since so many people already use MS software, if they keep on doing
things in a nonstandard way, more people will be tempted just to
knuckle under and go to Microsoft stuff.

 

[Doug White]

Keywords:

Obviously you know more about MS-DOS programs than I do.

I only have a couple of 16-bit applications that I could even try this with.

Move into the 21st century and buy a 32- or 64-bit program. I would
certainly think that something would be available, microwave technology is
going to be around for a while.

We have over $200K worth of 21st century micowave CAD bloatware. I spend more
time reporting bugs than I do getting my work done. The old DOS stuff
has decades worth of debugging already done. Also, because I wrote half
of it, I can easily debug & fix it myself if necessary.

While still improving performance considerably, Microsoft was able to
accomplish the goal of compatibility by implementing a set of operating
system "environment emulators." These are the so-called environment
subsystems that form the intermediate layer between user applications and
the core of the NT operating system. Because of module design of the
operating system, Windows NT is capable of supporting Windows/DOS, OS/2, and
POSIX applications.]]
From…
Windows NT Basics
Pub. Date: December 1999
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/evaluate/featfunc/windowsn.msp
x

Microsoft did what they could to support MS-DOS programs when they first
came out with NT 3.1 in 1993. Considering that MS-DOS was originally
released in 1981, Microsoft stopped development in 2000 and support ended
November 30, 2001.

If you're not gonna use something like DOSBox...
DOSBox, an x86 emulator with DOS
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

Given that this worked fine in W2K, I had hoped to avoid that route, but
it's on my list to try.

Then...

Troubleshooting MS-DOS-Based Programs in Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314106

How to Troubleshoot 16-Bit Windows Programs in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314495

How to Run Legacy Applications Using Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/lgcyapps.mspx

Lots of good 16-bit info here...
Appendix D - Running Nonnative Applications in Windows 2000 Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/Windows2000Pro/reskit/part8/proch3
6.mspx

I think I've already investigated most of these. The last one is of
little use, because things worked fine in W2K. I'll double check the
rest.

Thanks!

Doug White

 

[Richard Bonner]

[most trimmed]
*** I doubt they are interested in lives - only in making more money
and screwing up as many competing systems as possible. To that end, I have
been getting e-mails from Windows users for several years now where the
entire e-mail text is on one line. They seem to have changed the code for
return/linefeed. They also changed the apostrophe code, as apostrophes are
now starting to show as question marks. )-:

Richard, surely you know that most MS Windoozy software has
gone to a "paragraph" format in which a paragraph is a single physical
line and that it is up to the displaying program to wrap the visible
lines around appropriately for viewing.

*** Of course. Microsoft has once again changed the standard so that
other systems don't display Windows' documents properly, if at all. )-:

As for the apostrophe business -- double quotation marks are the
same -- that is due to MS ignoring international standards. (IBM did
the same years ago. Standards? What do you mean, standards? We are
IBM.) The ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) character set is a default character set
for many applications.

*** My news and mail readers are set to that.

That standard has some character positions
undefined, so MS, in their infinite wisdom (or arrogance) decided to
put some characters in those undefined positions, including "soft"
apostrophes and quotation marks. The real irritation is that so many
of their mail and news agents continue to mark the headers as
ISO-8859-1 when in fact it is their idiosyncratic Windows-1252
character set. MS software simply ignores the incorrect headers and
displays things the way MS wants it displayed, on the assumption that
since so many people already use MS software, if they keep on doing
things in a nonstandard way, more people will be tempted just to
knuckle under and go to Microsoft stuff.

*** Yup, but what I see happening is that more & more people are
getting fed up with MS sleaziness and general annoyances; they are
switching away. The brother of a a salesperson to whom I spoke last week
says his brother's clients now are 30% Linux.

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

 

[J French]

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.

The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &
"windowed" mode when a program is running in the DOS emulator. In NT &
W2K, this worked independent of whether the program was displaying text
or graphics. The graphics screen would be "frozen" when windowed, but
you could use Alt-Print Screen to copy the graphics to the clipboard,
which allowed the resulting image to be pasted into Word, PowerPoint etc.
for documentation & reports.

<snip>

I've been following this thread with some interest.

Perhaps I'm wrong,
- but isn't the DOS Graphics screen mapped in memory ?

I used to do a lot with the monochrome graphical CGA screen, reading
and writing to it directly, and I've vague memories of doing the same
with the VGA, but that is a long time ago.

If it is mapped in memory, then it would be pretty easy to write a
small TSR that dumps the lot to a file
- just like the SNAP prototype in the MSDOS Encyclopaedia

I've never looked into later video drivers, but if this is a legacy
DOS program, it seems likely that it conforms to old standards.

 

[markw]

Doug White wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.
The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &

[Some deleted for brevity]

What do you mean _YOU_ have a heavy investment in these ?
Did you write them ?

Because the programs work OK in XP, there is no point in going to a dual
boot system. The feature I am missing is unique to running DOS (or a
DOS emulator) in a windows environment. Short of downgrading to W2K
(which the IT people at work won't likely let me do), I appear to be
stuck.

So ,the programs Don't work OK. They or the OS are missing a feature
that is _key_ to you. Management can always override IT on critical
apps.

4) Is there any way to get Microsoft's attention about this issue? All
of my machines have OEM XP, which means Microsoft won't talk to me, and
Dell & IBM support just blame it on Micosoft & say there is nothing they
can do. I'd even be willing to pay $35 of my own money to place a
support call if I thought it would do any good.

Why would _you_ need to talk to any outside vendor ? Where the hell
are these great IT people ?

I work in the US defense industry, and there is a war on.

So there is no shortage of money to solve this problem.

I'm trying to save lives, and I
find it REALLY annoying that Microsoft has the resources to code up
talking paperclips but won't fix things that prevent people from getting
real work done.

Yeah ,yeah ,blah,blah, Microsoft is the bad guy and wants to kill
people.
They kept supporting the crappy code you have for over 10 years ,
what a bunch of lousy bastards ! I think we have your number , get
some balls ,and have your COMMERCIAL enterprise update the
original microwave software.

Thanks for any suggestions!

Doug White

Proudly ,
Mark Whitlock
P.S.
I cut the cross posts to 2 newsgroups ,the one I read this in
and the one that seemed most appropriate

 

[Richard Bonner]

Doug White wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc (Snip)

Yeah ,yeah ,blah,blah, Microsoft is the bad guy and wants to kill
people.
They kept supporting the crappy code you have for over 10 years ,
what a bunch of lousy bastards ! I think we have your number , get
some balls ,and have your COMMERCIAL enterprise update the
original microwave software.

*** Boy, the forced-upgrades brainwashing is displaying full colours
today. )-:

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

 

[Doug White]

Keywords:

Doug White wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.
The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &

[Some deleted for brevity]

What do you mean _YOU_ have a heavy investment in these ?
Did you write them ?

Yes I did, along with a number of co-workers. I am now responsible for
debugging & future development, but I also have real work to do, so I
don't have a lot of time to write work-arounds for Microsoft's bugs.

So ,the programs Don't work OK. They or the OS are missing a feature
that is _key_ to you. Management can always override IT on critical
apps.

They run, and do everything they used to in DOS (except that Microsoft
has broken access to upper memory, which limits the size of problems I
can run). The problem is that the way I do the rest of my work has
evolved, and I need to be able to get results into a Windows compatible
format. IT says they can't justify spending time supporting an old app,
independent of whether it is more useful than the commercial junk they
can't support either.

Why would _you_ need to talk to any outside vendor ? Where the hell
are these great IT people ?

What great IT people? They looked at it & threw their hands up in the
air.

So there is no shortage of money to solve this problem.

Money is useless in the face of marketing people who want to sell games
& multimedia applications to the masses. The entire defense industry is
being slowly dismantled by Harvard MBA's who's "businees plan" includes
mergers, breaking up successful companies & then selling off the pieces.
There are a number of systems that I worked on in the 80's that could
never be duplicated because the companies that built the pieces don't
exist anymore. The engineers & technology has been scattered to the four
winds.

Yeah ,yeah ,blah,blah, Microsoft is the bad guy and wants to kill
people.

No, they just don't care, which in some ways, is worse.

They kept supporting the crappy code you have for over 10 years ,
what a bunch of lousy bastards ! I think we have your number , get
some balls ,and have your COMMERCIAL enterprise update the
original microwave software.

As I said, there is no "commercial company" that wrote this stuff. I
have a ton of commercial software than I can use, and most of it is buggy
junk just like the stuff from Microsoft. If I really need to get
something accomplished I run my own code. I recently told Agilent that
we were fed up debugging their $40K CAD tool and that I was doing my best
to move away from their software. They said they would be sad to see me
leave because I had found over 13 critical flaws in their code in the
last two years.

It's pretty clear where you stand on the issues: clueless, like most of
the other sheep.

Doug White

 

[David Candy]

Why don't you write a program to get the screen like a TSR? It's just video card memory. In full screen mode the program accesses the video card directly. In a window it not allowed to. Normally the hardware mfg supplies a virtual device driver (it pretends to be the hardware to the program). MS supplies builtin VDDs.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================

Keywords:

Doug White wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc

I have a heavy investment in DOS based programs for microwave circuit
design that I have used for many years. I have managed to keep them
going through numerous OS changes, and they worked well in both Windows
NT and W2K. It appears that Microsoft has broken a feature I rely on
when they came out with XP.
The problem is that Alt-Enter should toggle between full screen &

[Some deleted for brevity]

What do you mean _YOU_ have a heavy investment in these ?
Did you write them ?

Yes I did, along with a number of co-workers. I am now responsible for
debugging & future development, but I also have real work to do, so I
don't have a lot of time to write work-arounds for Microsoft's bugs.

So ,the programs Don't work OK. They or the OS are missing a feature
that is _key_ to you. Management can always override IT on critical
apps.

They run, and do everything they used to in DOS (except that Microsoft
has broken access to upper memory, which limits the size of problems I
can run). The problem is that the way I do the rest of my work has
evolved, and I need to be able to get results into a Windows compatible
format. IT says they can't justify spending time supporting an old app,
independent of whether it is more useful than the commercial junk they
can't support either.

Why would _you_ need to talk to any outside vendor ? Where the hell
are these great IT people ?

What great IT people? They looked at it & threw their hands up in the
air.

So there is no shortage of money to solve this problem.

Money is useless in the face of marketing people who want to sell games
& multimedia applications to the masses. The entire defense industry is
being slowly dismantled by Harvard MBA's who's "businees plan" includes
mergers, breaking up successful companies & then selling off the pieces.
There are a number of systems that I worked on in the 80's that could
never be duplicated because the companies that built the pieces don't
exist anymore. The engineers & technology has been scattered to the four
winds.

Yeah ,yeah ,blah,blah, Microsoft is the bad guy and wants to kill
people.

No, they just don't care, which in some ways, is worse.

They kept supporting the crappy code you have for over 10 years ,
what a bunch of lousy bastards ! I think we have your number , get
some balls ,and have your COMMERCIAL enterprise update the
original microwave software.

As I said, there is no "commercial company" that wrote this stuff. I
have a ton of commercial software than I can use, and most of it is buggy
junk just like the stuff from Microsoft. If I really need to get
something accomplished I run my own code. I recently told Agilent that
we were fed up debugging their $40K CAD tool and that I was doing my best
to move away from their software. They said they would be sad to see me
leave because I had found over 13 critical flaws in their code in the
last two years.

It's pretty clear where you stand on the issues: clueless, like most of
the other sheep.

Doug White

 

[DOS Guy]

[ ... snip ... ]

It's pretty clear where you stand on the issues: clueless,
like most of the other sheep.

Doug White

Hee-hee. Yeah! Preach on, Brother Doug!

Frankly, your problem is one that commonly afflicts sophisticated
DOS programs running under later versions of WinDoze.

If your program is running in an office-wide networked environment,
you're pretty much screwed -- unless you'd care to code a work-around
for the function that Mikr0$l0th dropped.

It's possible, although it would be a royal pain in the patoot.

And if you think you have problems now, just wait until your IT guys
decide to "upgrade" the entire system to Vi$ta!

Any chance that you could keep a renegade computer running true DOS
somewhere in your workspace, just for your software? That's the
first thing I'd try.

But if that's not possible, your choices are somewhat limited:

1. Recode the offending sections of your program.

2. Let the IT guys find suitable WinDoze-based software
(crappy though it may be) to replace your program.

3. Leave your current employer and get a similar job with
a different outfit.

4. Retire from your current employer, and go into a totally
different field of endeavor.

Personally, I'd recommend #4. As long as Mikr0$l0th retains its
monopolistic deathgrip on the desktop, its Promulgation of the
Mediocre will only continue to get worse year after year.

Whatever you decide to do, best of luck!

 

[Doug White]

Keywords:

Why don't you write a program to get the screen like a TSR? It's just =
video card memory. In full screen mode the program accesses the video =
card directly. In a window it not allowed to. Normally the hardware mfg =
supplies a virtual device driver (it pretends to be the hardware to the =
program). MS supplies builtin VDDs.

If it was that easy, any of the twenty 3rd party screen capture programs
should be able to do it. Apparently it's more complex than that,
because none of them work.

DOSBox looks promising, except they have a little math problem that needs
resolving. Last I checked, 3/2 does not equal 2. I think they don't
support double precison math, which is all my software uses. At least
their fundamental approach is good, which is to write an emulator that
runs under Windows. It does manage to briefly get a simple plot up on
screen in a window, but then it crashes because of the math bug.

Doug White

 

[David Candy]

Can you write dos programs? This is debug capturing the first line of a screen. This is text mode (which is why I remember the address all these years) - the character followed by the attribute (blinking, underlined, or colour). I can't find any references easily but SVGA address is A0000 (but I don't remember the data structures). Debug is not of much use to you as it needs to be a TSR.
-d b800:0000
B800:0000 43 07 3A 07 5C 07 50 07-72 07 6F 07 67 07 72 07 C.:.\.P.r.o.g.r.
B800:0010 61 07 6D 07 20 07 46 07-69 07 6C 07 65 07 73 07 a.m. ..F.i.l.e.s.
B800:0020 5C 07 53 07 75 07 70 07-70 07 6F 07 72 07 74 07 \.S.u.p.p.o.r.t.
B800:0030 20 07 54 07 6F 07 6F 07-6C 07 73 07 3E 07 64 07 ..T.o.o.l.s.>.d.
B800:0040 65 07 62 07 75 07 67 07-20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 e.b.u.g. . .. . .
B800:0050 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07-20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 . . . . . .. . .
B800:0060 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07-20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 . . . . . .. . .
B800:0070 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07-20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 . . . . . .. . .
-

 

[David Candy]

I don't know how Dos Box works, but for it to not work then it must emulate the processor as it is progams and the processor that do maths, not Dos.

 

[Doug White]

Keywords:

I don't know how Dos Box works, but for it to not work then it must =
emulate the processor as it is progams and the processor that do maths, =
not Dos.

I agree. I know they emulate various processors, but I don't know if
they include the math coprocessor. I think the math coprocessor was
merged in with the main processor chip at around the '486 level, but I'm
not sure. I'm surprised they haven't run into this before, because one
of the big "customers" for DOSBox is gamers. I would think you would
need a lot of fairly fast math to run something like a flight simulator,
but maybe not.

I'm in the process of writing up a bug report for the DOSBox forum.

Doug White