From: Michael Tippach <mtippach AT gmx DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Is DOS dead?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:23:35 +0100
Organization: another problem of mine
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <38D11897.2ED0@gmx.net>
References: <fmj8csoh6qqnpvrsdtlk83ec462s8a4sbe AT 4ax DOT com> <38C7D12E DOT 1E12 AT gmx DOT net> <i57gcsk294pgff526i9gihqsjmarlvhnv3 AT 4ax DOT com> <38CD09B3 DOT 7373 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000314094608 DOT 4527E-100000 AT is> <38CE19B2 DOT 69C7 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000315104128 DOT 17230G-100000 AT is> <38CF7CED DOT 505A AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000315185511 DOT 20407P-100000 AT is> <38D0B4D1 DOT 380F AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000316172141 DOT 5735H-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wuschel.phoenix.com (134.122.90.115)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 953227514 4424675 134.122.90.115 (16 [12290])
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Michael Tippach wrote:
> 
> > > > > > it takes 3 more lines of assembly code to detect NT.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not really true, especially now that you need to distinguish
> > > > > between NT and W2K.
> > > >
> > > > So does W2K return a different value than 0x3205 from function 0x3306?
> > >
> > > No, it reports the same value, but behaves differently.
> >
> > In how far does it behave differently? Could this different behaviour be
> > used to detect either version or is there no way to, by means of code,
> > inspect the differences without crashing the NTVDM on one system?
> 
> No, I don't know about any way of telling NT and W2K apart without
> crashing the system.

What's "OS" in the environment set to? E.g. under NT 4 it's
"OS=Windows_NT" Admittedly, the user can change this to anything they
desire...

>  This test is required *because* different
> work-arounds are needed in each case to avoid crashes and other
> ``surprises''.
> 
> One problem with NT that needs to be worked around is that NT ignores the
> hight 16 bits of the user procedure address that is installed as a
> real-mode  callback (e.g., for handling mouse events).

Does Win2K behave the same?

Regards,

Michael Tipppach