cen@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Charles E. Newman) (11/17/90)
I read once that there are versions of the UNIX operating system for the IBM-PC family of computers that will let you run DOS programs while under UNIX. Is this true? If so, which UNIX systems allow this? -Charles E Newman ........ames!pacbell!sactoh0!cen
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/18/90)
In article <4325@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US> cen@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Charles E. Newman) writes: > I read once that there are versions of the UNIX operating >system for the IBM-PC family of computers that will let you run DOS >programs while under UNIX. Is this true? If so, which UNIX systems >allow this? All of them. What you need is the add-on package called VPIX or DOS MERGE. ESIX is the only one that does not deliver thier own, but the VPIX implementation for ISC UNIX will work under ESIX. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (11/18/90)
In article <4325@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US> cen@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Charles E. Newman) writes: > > I read once that there are versions of the UNIX operating >system for the IBM-PC family of computers that will let you run DOS >programs while under UNIX. Is this true? If so, which UNIX systems >allow this? Using Esix, Interactive, you can use "VP/ix", a DOS emulator for Unix. I believe SCO has their own version, and there may be others available as well. -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill@unixland.uucp, bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix - Esix SYSVR3 - (508) 655-3848 other: heiser@world.std.com Public Access Unix (617) 739-9753
price@chakra.unl.edu (Chad Price) (11/26/90)
In <4325@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US> cen@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Charles E. Newman) writes: > I read once that there are versions of the UNIX operating >system for the IBM-PC family of computers that will let you run DOS >programs while under UNIX. Is this true? If so, which UNIX systems >allow this? Yes It is true. No they do not run bug-free.. At work (USDA Soil Conservation Service) we run AT&T 386's with SysV version 3.2(?). Word Perfect regularly drops keystrokes on my AT&T 605 terminal. The 605 has a PC keyboard hooked to a "normal" terminal. The WP preview option (Shift F7, v) does not work except on the console. We use the AT&T labeled version of VP-IX, which on the whole seems fairly robust - from the console or from the terminals, it is possible to do what on a regular PC would be a machine reboot (Ctl-Alt-Del) and not affect any of the Unix sessions which are occurring concurently with the DOS session. It obviously is a well-programmed use of the 386's virtual 8086 mode! Chad price@fergvax.unl.edu
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (11/27/90)
In article <price.659584555@chakra> price@chakra.unl.edu (Chad Price) writes: >In <4325@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US> cen@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Charles E. Newman) writes: > > >>I read once that there are versions of the UNIX ... that will let you run DOS >>programs ... > >Yes It is true. No they do not run bug-free.. After many months of running SCO ODT, I have yet to encounter a problem with the MERGE DOS support. I have run all sorts of hackery on it: keyboard, VGA and comm port mungers, Word 5, and a whole bunch more. Of course, I wouldn't load Lotus if it were free. Such druk that wants to screw with strange disk I/O (copy protection schemes) *won't* work with DOS under UNIX. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US ANSI C should have been named D, or Son of C
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (11/28/90)
In article <243@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) writes: >After many months of running SCO ODT, I have yet to encounter a >problem with the MERGE DOS support. I have run all sorts of hackery >on it: keyboard, VGA and comm port mungers, Word 5, and a whole bunch more. >Of course, I wouldn't load Lotus if it were free. Such druk that >wants to screw with strange disk I/O (copy protection schemes) >*won't* work with DOS under UNIX. Unfortunately, as 286 and 386 machines come to dominate the marketplace, more and more application programs are taking the trouble to [yecch] CHECK what CPU they're running on, and run different code as a result. The problem is that a program running in V86 mode can do certain 386 tests *successfuly*, leading it to believe (erroneously) that it's OK to run the full gamut of protected mode stuff -- which promptly bombs MERGE or VP/ix. A prime example is Windows 3.0. DESPITE the fact that it runs just fine on a *real* 8086/88, and DESPITE the explicit /R switch they give you to FORCE it to use 8086/88 mode on any CPU, it **STILL** thinks it's smarter than you and checks for that 386 chip! Wham, instant death. What a hair tearer.
tmh@bigfoot.FOKUS.GMD.DBP.DE (Thomas Hoberg) (12/04/90)
In article <16067@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: |> |> Unfortunately, as 286 and 386 machines come to dominate the marketplace, |> more and more application programs are taking the trouble to [yecch] |> CHECK what CPU they're running on, and run different code as a result. |> The problem is that a program running in V86 mode can do certain 386 |> tests *successfuly*, leading it to believe (erroneously) that it's OK to |> run the full gamut of protected mode stuff -- which promptly bombs MERGE |> or VP/ix. A prime example is Windows 3.0. DESPITE the fact that it |> runs just fine on a *real* 8086/88, and DESPITE the explicit /R switch |> they give you to FORCE it to use 8086/88 mode on any CPU, it **STILL** |> thinks it's smarter than you and checks for that 386 chip! Wham, instant |> death. What a hair tearer. If that's the only reason a session with the debugger should do it. However that's not really a solution, as Windows in 'real' mode isn't at it's best (even with EMS). I heard some rumors that Unix vendors are looking into DPMI (Dos Protected Mode Interface). With DPMI functionality integrated into the Unix Kernel and a GDI-to-X interface, running Windows applications under Unix would be a natural rather than a kludge. Maybe it's time to ask your Unix vendor about DPMI..... ---- Thomas M. Hoberg | UUCP: tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de or tmh%gmdtub@tub.UUCP c/o GMD Berlin | ...!unido!tub!gmdtub!tmh (Europe) or D-1000 Berlin 12 | ...!unido!tub!tmh Hardenbergplatz 2 | ...!pyramid!tub!tmh (World) Germany | BITNET: tmh%DB0TUI6.BITNET@DB0TUI11 or +49-30-254 99 160 | tmh@tub.BITNET
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (12/06/90)
In article <201@bigfoot.first.gmd.de> Thomas Hoberg writes: >... I heard some rumors that Unix vendors are looking into >DPMI (Dos Protected Mode Interface). With DPMI functionality integrated into >the Unix Kernel and a GDI-to-X interface, running Windows applications under >Unix would be a natural rather than a kludge. Maybe it's time to ask your >Unix vendor about DPMI..... No! Yucch! Not on my machine. Ptooie. Barf. Vendors, please keep this garbage out of the kernel. If anyone wants to run DOS they can get DOS. Don't drag my system down to the lowest common denominator. That's what OS/2 is for. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government West Hill, Ontario, Canada | like no government! +1 416 281 6094 |