Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

[letterman@invalid.com]

I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se.
So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else
running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something
about this program that dont get along with Win98.

Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a
workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks?

PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not
available in other programs.

Thanks

 

[Jeff Richards]

You might get a better result by installing Windows 95 or 98 on a virtual
machine running on a system with a more modern OS. The Virtual PC setup
will allow you to specify the RAM size - accept the default for W9x.
Otherwise, try restricting the memory size using either of the techniques
described here
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912
For a Windows 3.1 application I would recommend no more than 64Mb
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...
>I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
>
> I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se.
> So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else
> running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something
> about this program that dont get along with Win98.
>
> Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a
> workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks?
>
> PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not
> available in other programs.
>
> Thanks
>

 

[MEB]

The program likely contains/contained its own memory management which is
now in conflict with the Windows manager/management.

You can try:
setting up its link/pif to use its own environment/management
running mkcompat.exe in %windir%\system
create a batch file, setting up its requirements in the properties.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
_ _
~~
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...
| I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
| on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
| on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
| Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
| 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
|
| I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se.
| So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else
| running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something
| about this program that dont get along with Win98.
|
| Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a
| workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks?
|
| PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not
| available in other programs.
|
| Thanks
|

 

[Jeff Richards]

Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...
>I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
>
> I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se.
> So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else
> running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something
> about this program that dont get along with Win98.
>
> Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a
> workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks?
>
> PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not
> available in other programs.
>
> Thanks
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:53:47 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> The program likely contains/contained its own memory management which is
>now in conflict with the Windows manager/management.
>
> You can try:
> setting up its link/pif to use its own environment/management
> running mkcompat.exe in %windir%\system
> create a batch file, setting up its requirements in the properties.

Thanks for the reply. I ran mkcompat.exe so far it dont work, but I
am a little confused about the part where you say %windir%\system.

When I ran mkcompat.exe I chose the program file. Then I chose
several of the settings (most of them) to make it appear as if I have
win3.1.

I know how to make a batch file, I'm just not sure about that line you
posted.

Please make an example.

I guess I'm not sure where/when to attempt to enter the program .EXE

The file name and path are:

TAP.EXE
C:\Tap\TAP.EXE

(program name is Text Appeal)
It does not run in dos, and as I said wont run in win98.

The program is for making circular/curved text for making pin on
buttons. Goes with my button maker machine.

Thanks

LM

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98.

I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder
under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in
3.1 from a PIF?

thanks

LM

 

[Bill in Co.]

You mean with Virtual PC?

Jeff Richards wrote:
> Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com...
>> I have a really great program that I used to use for special effects
>> on a project that I do. For some reason, this program will not work
>> on Win98se. What's really puzzling is that it gives me an "Out of
>> Memory" error. Well, it used to run just fine on a 386 computer with
>> 16 megs of Ram and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
>>
>> I now run a pentium III 1ghz, with 512M ram, and Win98se.
>> So, I know it's not a lack of memory, and I tried it with nothing else
>> running, not even startup programs. Obviously, there is something
>> about this program that dont get along with Win98.
>>
>> Aside from running Win3.11 on an old computer, I'd like to find a
>> workaround to run it on Win98. Does anyone know any tricks?
>>
>> PS. This program is a graphics editor with some special effects not
>> available in other programs.
>>
>> Thanks

 

[Jeff Richards]

Yes. Windows 3.1 is just another DOS application. You could consider
tweaking the PIF settings to get adequate performance, but from memory the
default works OK.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:qtm8d493bku90m3j3k35htc3kfeeilb9d5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98.
>
> I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder
> under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in
> 3.1 from a PIF?
>
> thanks
>
> LM

 

[Bill in Co.]

Color me skeptical here:
How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually
tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell? Please explain in
detail how you did that.

Jeff Richards wrote:
> Yes. Windows 3.1 is just another DOS application. You could consider
> tweaking the PIF settings to get adequate performance, but from memory the
> default works OK.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:qtm8d493bku90m3j3k35htc3kfeeilb9d5@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:08:36 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
>> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, don't forget that you can run Windows 3.1 from within Windows 98.
>>
>> I never knew that. What do I do, just install Win3.1 in a folder
>> under a different name (such as "Windows3"), and run the win.com in
>> 3.1 from a PIF?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> LM

 

[Jeff Richards]

It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it. The
DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it
perfectly well.

Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Color me skeptical here:
> How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually
> tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell? Please explain
> in detail how you did that.
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that
changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")? Yes,
I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" - in
stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the Win
API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a rough
idea of this critical difference)

Jeff Richards wrote:
> It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it.
> The
> DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it
> perfectly well.
>
> Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Color me skeptical here:
>> How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you actually
>> tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell?

 

[Jeff Richards]

There was no fundamental change from Windows 3.1 to 9x, although of course
there was a significant increase in complexity. Windows 9x is still an
installed DOS application - you can boot to DOS and then run WIN to start
it. The issue is that the DOS provided in the NT-based versions of Windows
is not capable of supporting the installation of Win9x, whereas the DOS
provided in W9x supports Windows 3.1 just fine. It's a combination of the
functionality available in a particular version of DOS and the demands made
by Windows.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that
> changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")?
> Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" -
> in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the
> Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a
> rough idea of this critical difference)
>
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

There's a difference in the bootstrap.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118579

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that
> changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")?
> Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" -
> in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the
> Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a
> rough idea of this critical difference)
>
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>> It works just fine. Open a DOS window, install Windows 3.1 and run it.
>> The
>> DOS mode of Windows 98 is near enough to a proper DOS to support it
>> perfectly well.
>>
>> Windows 3.1 is a nothing more than a fairly complex DOS application.
>> --
>> Jeff Richards
>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:Oj5KiruGJHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Color me skeptical here:
>>> How is Windows 3.1 simply another "DOS application"? Have you
>>> actually
>>> tried running "Windows 3.1", *per se*, in a cmd shell?
>
>

 

[Dan]

Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just a
command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In addition,
why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology --- Not
There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the underlying
maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a
Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating system
like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.

http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!336.entry

What are your thoughts and opinions about this argument?

"Jeff Richards" wrote:

> There was no fundamental change from Windows 3.1 to 9x, although of course
> there was a significant increase in complexity. Windows 9x is still an
> installed DOS application - you can boot to DOS and then run WIN to start
> it. The issue is that the DOS provided in the NT-based versions of Windows
> is not capable of supporting the installation of Win9x, whereas the DOS
> provided in W9x supports Windows 3.1 just fine. It's a combination of the
> functionality available in a particular version of DOS and the demands made
> by Windows.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eLlNUm1GJHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > OK, then. So when we went to Win9x, what specifically changed that
> > changed that model (that it is/was just a "complex DOS application")?
> > Yes, I do recall it "seemed" as if Windows 3.1 just "sat on top of DOS" -
> > in stark comparison to Win9x). Maybe it has to do with introducing the
> > Win API stuff, or something along those lines? (I'm trying to get a
> > rough idea of this critical difference)
> >
> >
>
>
>

 

[Jeff Richards]

It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume
bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular
viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just
> a
> command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In
> addition,
> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology ---
> Not
> There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
> underlying
> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a
> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating
> system
> like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.

 

[Dan]

Thank you for your reply.

"Jeff Richards" wrote:

> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume
> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular
> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a duck
> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
> > Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just
> > a
> > command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
> > maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT. In
> > addition,
> > why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology ---
> > Not
> > There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
> > underlying
> > maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a
> > Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating
> > system
> > like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.
>
>
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Jeff Richards wrote:
> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume
> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular
> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a
> duck
> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just
>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT.

That sounds correct to me too.

>> In addition,
>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology ---
>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
>> underlying
>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a
>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating
>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.

I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, there
is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in many
ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands).

BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can in
Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x.

Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like
NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level
access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console.

 

[thanatoid]

letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com:

> Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98

Something tells me you will not read this, as it's been a while.

But if you ARE reading...

Have you checked that VBRUN100.DLL (and 200 and 300) are both in
your root and system win directories? Many older programs depend
on those but may not necessarily tell you so.

Maybe even the 4 version, VB40032.DLL (that goes in system, the
others go in both to make sure).

--
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the
votes decide everything.
- Josef Stalin

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On 25 Sep 2008 02:35:42 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid>
wrote:

>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:lco6d4hmm43fe6dlj0nbjudlakpgri9gpg@4ax.com:
>
>> Windows 3.x program wont work on Win98
>
>Something tells me you will not read this, as it's been a while.
>
>But if you ARE reading...
>
>Have you checked that VBRUN100.DLL (and 200 and 300) are both in
>your root and system win directories? Many older programs depend
>on those but may not necessarily tell you so.
>
>Maybe even the 4 version, VB40032.DLL (that goes in system, the
>others go in both to make sure).

I'm reading this and still following the thread since I have not
gotten the program to work.

I have VBRUN100.DLL 200 and 300. All are in the Windows/System
folder. I'll copy them to the Windows folder and give it a try. I do
recall having to install them in Win3.x, and I probably copied them to
Win98 for other older software. I'll see if that helps.

Thanks for the help.
LM

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Jeff Richards wrote:
>> It is a pointless argument that has been manufactured in order to consume
>> bandwidth and provide some people with a platform for espousing particular
>> viewpoints about the future direction of Windows. If it walks like a
>> duck
>> and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.
>> --
>> Jeff Richards
>> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6F734987-D1F8-46D3-8420-1E60D209355F@microsoft.com...
>>> Jeff, can we really call it DOS in Windows NT since I thought it was just
>>> a command prompt and this was Chris Quirke, mvp's big argument that the
>>> maintenance operating system of DOS was missing in Windows NT.
>
>That sounds correct to me too.
>
>>> In addition,
>>> why would early Microsoft engineers have called the "New Technology ---
>>> Not There" if these software engineers were not referring to how the
>>> underlying
>>> maintenance operating system was missing in Windows NT. Sure, you have a
>>> Recovery Console in Windows XP but still no true maintenance operating
>>> system like DOS at least according to Chris Quirke.
>
>I think Chris Quirke's correct, too. Just like here in Windows XP, there
>is no real DOS, per se, but there is a command shell (cmd.exe) that, in many
>ways, *acts* like DOS (and runs many similar commands).
>
>BUT - you CANNOT boot up to it as a separate operating system, as you can in
>Win9x, which has a real mode DOS underlying Win9x.
>
>Hence you may need some special utilities to work around this, like
>NTFS4DOS, or Bart'sPE CD, etc, IF you want or need that special low level
>access to the system. Or you can use the Recovery Console.
>

If a system has one of the versions of NT Windows, and is set to dual
boot to either Dos or (for example) XP, -AND- The harddrive is
formatted to Fat32, one can still access all the files on the drive,
including the XP files. I know this for fact because my laptop has
Win2k installed, but I can boot to dos at startup (I get the dual boot
option). Of course, I have no idea what to do to fix 2K, like I do
with 98se.