Hello, * On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:42:15PM +0100 silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: > > > On 2018-01-04, at 21:34, Michał Pleban <lists@michau.name> wrote: > > > > silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: > > > >> AFAIR except those from Microsoft, which detect the "incompatible" environment and show its middle finger to the user ;-) Or something like that... > > > > It was Windows, and only the beta version. It is documented in detail in > > "The undocumented DOS" which I gave Ruud to scan. > > Memory may not serve well but I recall this from around 84 or so. Windows 3.1 in 1984? For sure not. ;) A discussion of this topic from the Microsoft side can be found here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/larryosterman/2004/08/13/so-why-didnt-the-windows-guys-just-remove-the-aard-code-from-the-system/ and https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/larryosterman/2004/08/12/aardvarks-in-your-code/ Money quote: "In order to get Windows to work, I had to change the DOS loader to detect when win.com was being loaded, and if it was being loaded, I looked at the code at an offset relative to the base code segment, and if it was a “MOV” instruction, and the amount being moved was the old size of the SFT, I patched the instruction in memory to reflect the new size of the SFT! Yup, MS-DOS 4.0 patched the running windows binary to make sure Windows would still continue to work." The technical discussion of the code can be found here: http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/biblio/ddj/Website/articles/DDJ/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2018-01-04 22:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.