- #VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 HOW TO#
- #VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 INSTALL#
- #VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 DRIVER#
- #VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 PATCH#
- #VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 FULL#
#VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 DRIVER#
This informs us of the failure to start up the I/O Supervisor, which is basically Windows 9x’s disk driver layer. But that is also easily patched by a TSR, which can have it return a fixed path to SYSTEM.DAT. DOSBox, of course, does not implement it, triggering the error above. There is an actual dedicated system call for it. Windows 9x relies on MS-DOS to locate the Registry file.
#VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 PATCH#
(There is actually a patch in the development branch which at least stops DOSBox from entirely exiting, but it is not part of any release yet.) Suppose, however, that it’s not actually very important: I can have a TSR turn it into a dummy call that does nothing. I presume DOSBox developers have no idea either, so they did not implement it. What is it supposed to do? I have no idea. Here’s what Ralf Brown’s has to say about this call: With the upstream DOSBox, I barely managed to run Windows 95 in Safe Mode (from a disk image), and even then it froze basically at first opportunity upon moving the mouse.īut what happens if you ignore all the above advice and attempt to start Windows from within DOSBox’s built-in DOS? When I followed the steps in the question, DOSBox exited and put this message in the log: Exit to error: DOS:Illegal 0x33 Call 7ĭOSBox terminates when it sees the guest attempt to invoke interrupt 0x21, service 0x3307. There is a thread on detailing the improvements included in that fork. A fork, DOSBox-X, explicitly targets general DOS software and Windows 95, and provides much more stable hardware emulation. 0 But then, because it was designed to run on real hardware and expects to read and write disk sectors directly, it will not be able to access directory mounts, which are normally provided by DOSBox.Īnd even with the right version of MS-DOS, DOSBox doesn’t emulate PC hardware with the necessary fidelity to allow Windows to run reliably, though an unofficial guide to make it work has been written.
#VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 INSTALL#
It is for this reason that you need to install Windows 95 on a disk image and tell DOSBox to boot from it: so that the bundled version of MS-DOS is available to Windows, which provides the necessary interface. As such Windows 9x is much more intimately tied to the version of MS-DOS it came with, unlike Windows 3.x, which can run pretty well even on DR DOS, despite Microsoft’s best intentions. Windows 9x, on the other hand, requires a much larger and deeper API/ABI surface of DOS to function, some of which is very poorly documented and understood. Other than that, games typically need access to sound, video and network hardware, with which DOS itself has little involvement.
#VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 FULL#
you can't just mount a subdirectory on your host machine. This has to be mounted as a disk image, i.e. General steps involved to get Win95 running are: Windows 3.1 and later are all picky about what DOS they run on top of and will crash/halt/exit if you're using FreeDOS or DOSBox's DOS emulation. This won't work because most importantly the DOS emulation that DOSBox provides will NOT run Win95 - you'll need to actually install a real MS-DOS version to install and later run Windows. I imagine you simply have a disk image with Win95 on it and you're trying to run it. There are other web pages you can search on the web which will walk you through installation of Windows 95 on DOSBox (e.g.
#VOGONS DOSBOX WINDOWS 3.1 HOW TO#
There is another project called DOSBox-X which attempts to address some of the quirks that prevent Windows 95 from running on it and as such they have guides on how to do it. I went through the motions several times before I got it to work, but the main issue is that DOSBox doesn't really work out-of-the-box with Win95.