0% sounds better. Mine must be faster.
2.2ghz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=281012
1ghz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=281014
apparently AMD is the way to go if you want to sharpen images it blew the pants off of ripsters intel lol
Damn, I knew my aging rig would be beaten soon. I'm still waiting to go 8 core before upgrading my lowly 3.6Ghz Q6700 - AVCHD video editing would be the only real app that needs it though.
And I refuse to go water cooled. Those OCN people are weirder than the Vintage Computing guys.
Well, for Internet browsing, anything over 100Mhz is enough.
I worship at the altar of Adobe.
Unlike IBM they still support the PC business.
Probably slower than my current PC. I'll wait.
I worship at the altar of Adobe.
Unlike IBM they still support the PC business.
Depends on what software you are running.
Knowing IBM, $2,000 probably buys you a low end model with a single CPU...
Hey how did you guess? =p
Well my theory was buy the lowest model, chuck out the single processor IBM puts in, and put two high end ones in yourself for cheap. You'd have to buy a heatsink of course. Probably will be more than the processor lol.
It comes with 2 GB of RAM, so, you'd only need two more for something decent.
So that's a way to get IBM quality, for half the price... if you don't want to buy used.
A machine that is intended for single CPU configurations only will only have a single socket motherboard. IBM being IBM, you can bet that the case is designed in such a way that a twin socket motherboard cannot be inserted. The thing may well not have any PCI-E 16x slots for a graphics card. Some models may not even have any sort of graphics capability at all.
The things that make IBM servers high quality compared with other brands are irrelevant if you are using it as a desktop PC.
A machine that is intended for single CPU configurations only will only have a single socket motherboard. IBM being IBM, you can bet that the case is designed in such a way that a twin socket motherboard cannot be inserted. The thing may well not have any PCI-E 16x slots for a graphics card. Some models may not even have any sort of graphics capability at all.
The things that make IBM servers high quality compared with other brands are irrelevant if you are using it as a desktop PC.
Were you posting on the forum on that machine?
My highest result was with my gateway 141xl, which has a t8300 in it for about 2600. I have 3 desktops with c2d's at the same frequency of 2.4 and all got less. My most powerful relative system with the best memory and running a gtx 260 got the worst result of the 4 units of the same generation. How is that? I guess cause it's running windows 7 and the others are xp... hmm
Pretty interesting. Here's the same configuration as my my p5n-e sli mobo with the same processor that's been oc'd.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/205646
Mine is about 2300 right now, my lowest score. Suppose I should oc it....
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11
Overall Geekbench Score: 3351 |||||||||||||
Memory Memory performance 1981
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 1244
Memory Score: 3482 |||||||||||||
Stream Score: 2300 |||||||||
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 4466
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2687
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 1093
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 738
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 924
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3739 ||||||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3572 ||||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2024 ||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 2726 ||||||||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 5349 |||||||||||||||||||||
my Sony U3 with a 933MHz Transmeta Crusoe processor http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/282929
YES! :D
....
no... :(
(But it should work... I'll just have to find the hammers and the nails first.)
Update:
I'm quite certain that it will be possible from my Amiga600. WB2.05, 7.14MHz mc68000 and 2MB RAM.
I used to be able to get online with that computer and download stuff from Aminet with a Lynx clone browser. I'll just have to get it out from the basement and then I can test if it's possible.
Lot of people on that site have benched their ipads and iphones:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=iphone&commit=Search
It's interesting that the newer ones have about the same processing power as my oqo. I wonder what it would take to get windows running on them.
MrA500 uses his Amiga 500 to do geekhack posts.
Oh good... a chance for me to show off. Yes, this post was done with an Amiga 500.
I think I'm using around 6Mb, but I could easily get that under 4Mb by using a lower screenmode.
Wow, how do you access the web?
Wow, how do you access the web?
It's interesting that your sony uses the same processor as the oqo and the Compaq tc1000, but seems to be underclocked by about 75 mhz or so.
MrA500 uses his Amiga 500 to do geekhack posts.
Oh good... a chance for me to show off. Yes, this post was done with an Amiga 500.Ok I didn't see this... So it is expanded..
I think I'm using around 6Mb, but I could easily get that under 4Mb by using a lower screenmode.
When I'm thinking about it... I spoke with a person at Breakpoint 2005 (http://breakpoint.untergrund.net/2005/) who used a Commodore 64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64) with a MMC Replay (http://www.vesalia.de/e_mmcreplay.htm) and a RR-Net (http://www.vesalia.de/e_rrnet.htm) to post threads in www.vintage-computer.com (http://www.vintage-computer.com/). Which is a vBulletin based forum.
He used Contiki-OS (http://www.sics.se/contiki/) as operating system and used Contikis internal web browser to post with.
So that's it! You need a MOS6510 CPU running at almost 1MHz and 64kB of RAM to post at this forum... :)
(I actually own a C64 and a MMC Replay... I'll just have to get hold of a RR-Net unit and I can test this myself... :D )
I've played with projects that turn $20 MCU boards into fully functional C64 or Apple ][+ computers ... the machines are pathetically simple today, 65xx/Z80 CPUs @ ~1-2MHz. Not enough RAM to store this page. Such low resolution that this page would take about 50 screens anyhow. The only "hard" part in building these toys can be finding the original ROM code, then finding any software titles which have survived the ages.You can always buy a C-One (http://www.c64upgra.de/c-one/). A fully reconfigurable FPGA computer. With the ARM expansion you can download firmware to make it act as a C64, A500, Apple ][ or anything you want really.
As fantastic as those machines were back then, I recall that a topheavy BBS could make them struggle. I seriously doubt they could handle a typical GH thread full of hyperlinks and minor graphics.But the thing is that the browsers on these small systems most of the time don't render all of the pages. Just enough data to make them usable. Most often you don't need all pictures and so on. Take Lynx (http://lynx.browser.org/) or Links (http://www.jikos.cz/~mikulas/links/) for example. That data wouldn't be any problem at all for a C64 to show.
You can always buy a ... fully reconfigurable FPGA computer ...lol, the $20 controllers I was referring to are FPGAs, CPLDs, ARMs, PICs, AVRs, Atmels, take your pick - any of these parts is huge overkill. Admittedly, some workarounds are needed (to emulate floppy drives, etc) and some special hardware cannot always be perfectly duplicated (C64 audio, for example). My "PDA" (previously a Nintendo DS) is now simultaneously an Apple][+/][e and C64 (with PS/2 keyboard connector, stylus touchscreen, and 2GB SD card interface).
These new, small and optimised browser is probably much better at showing text then the old modem consoles were.I think you're right. Software is obviously more capable now, especially on ancient machines that now pack then-inconceivable amounts of memory and speed increases. Software has gotten sloppy these days, though ... back then every byte and every clock you could squeeze mattered, small code runs faster.
I suppose I could view webpages on my "C64" ... but in my mind the final result just doesn't justify the programming effort involved. It'd be cheaper and easier to buy a junked 486 than build an FPGA board.
One of the EEs at work built a "webserver" using a 4Mhz PIC, 9V battery, and 1GB CF card.
the original pentium 133mhz could run win95 and use the internet. well, probably not with the content that is on most sites now. of course the internet was designed for 33.6kbps back then.
when the web was first developed around 95wasn't graphical web officially released in late -92? I remember using Mosaic on my Amiga in late -93 (I have a clear memory of using a WWW application on the Amiga some days before Christmas in -93. It must have been Mosaic.).
That Atari webserver is a truly awe-inspiring piece of engineering. Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same.You still have a webserver in Contiki wich run on the C64... I'll guess that is as "Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same." :)
That Atari webserver is a truly awe-inspiring piece of engineering. Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same.
wasn't graphical web officially released in late -92? I remember using Mosaic on my Amiga in late -93 (I have a clear memory of using a WWW application on the Amiga some days before Christmas in -93. It must have been Mosaic.).
First time I connected to the internet was in -91 through a BBS who routed me through his connection so I could read and post things on Usenet in real time. :)
You still have a webserver in Contiki wich run on the C64... I'll guess that is as "Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same." :)
That Atari webserver is a truly awe-inspiring piece of engineering. Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same.
I'm not particularly confident that 128 bytes (actually less, if any programs are being run) is sufficient to serve much web content ... the average SMS message can hold more ... but it clearly works. Missile Command is an excellent alternative to GH, provided a decent trackball is about.
Here's another laptop (http://benheck.com/04-05-2009/commodore-64-original-hardware-laptop) worth looking at.
wasn't graphical web officially released in late -92? I remember using Mosaic on my Amiga in late -93 (I have a clear memory of using a WWW application on the Amiga some days before Christmas in -93. It must have been Mosaic.).
First time I connected to the internet was in -91 through a BBS who routed me through his connection so I could read and post things on Usenet in real time. :)
You still have a webserver in Contiki wich run on the C64... I'll guess that is as "Frightening, worrying, dismaying, yet awesome all the same." :)
With the Amiga 500, I use a 56K modem, MiamiDX TCP/IP and IBrowse web browser. Unfortunately, A500 Ethernet adapters are rare and expensive. On the Amiga 3000 I'm using for this post, I use a USB Ethernet adapter (only 99¢!), connected to high speed internet cable modem.
The Amiga 3000 is 16Mhz.
Ah, I thought you would be using dial up... What isp still has dial in nodes? Aol?
Obviously the internet is different from the web. The net was developed and in place as early as 89 or 90, and obviously earlier if you were government or military.
Ah, I thought you would be using dial up... What isp still has dial in nodes? Aol? You still pay for a dial up isp?a lot of ISPs have them in case the other stuff goes down, I know cox communications does down here in southeast va
There's still plenty of folks using dial up. A guy I know just got hooked up to the Internet and he's got dial-up.
Obviously the internet is different from the web. The net was developed and in place as early as 89 or 90, and obviously earlier if you were government or military. I was sending emails in 91 from my first failed college attempt dorm, where they had a couple old macs set up and hooked into the net. When I came home from that miserable experience I joined genie in late 91 or early 92 and had access to email from the net that way, as well of course dialing into various bbs's and such. The web wasn't really up, and certainly not popular till 94 or 95 at all, even in America.
The DNS first showed up in 1983 and the first .com (symbolics.com) was registered in March 1985. The Internet pretty much dates from then.
a lot of ISPs have them in case the other stuff goes down, I know cox communications does down here in southeast va
Anyone know how to change the bios of a motherboard so that it's not an unknown name for a custom/homebuilt system when tested on geekbench?If it's a socketed then you can easily swap the chip out with any pin-compatible PROM/EPROM part.
Well, I kinda missed the bandwagon on this one, but anyway:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/284240
Yeah...I need some improvement in the memory department, kinda unbalanced.
If it's a socketed then you can easily swap the chip out with any pin-compatible PROM/EPROM part.
If it's an integrated EEPROM/Flash then you can (and probably should) just use software to rewrite it. You could manually desolder the part off the board, though there is then a risk of thermal damage and ESD corrupting the firmcode. Another chip (and/or socket to mount it) could then be installed.
Most modern PC mobos integrate the BIOS within the Southbridge/ICH component of the chipset, sometimes in the Winbond-style "Super I/O" chip. These parts are difficult to purchase individually, you'd likely need to salvage them from another mobo. Firmware is also encoded in other components: processors, RAM controllers, HDDs and ODDs, ethernet controllers, graphics cards, etc.
Of course, you could always call tech support. ;)
Dang, you got an 8000 with an i5? That's better than most 920 i7's I've seen? How'd you do that? What's a GBT___ GBTUACPI?
8000 4GHz i5 750 versus my lowly 3.6 GHz Q6700 6129 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280974)
Pics of Girls licking a Sigmund Freud lollypop remind me that there is more to life than Penis Envy.
Yeah, it's one of these (submodel 045, not all original however) (http://www.ps2project.org/index.php?title=PS/2_Model_56_%288556%29).
Would be running OS/2 (y'know, something worth bothering with) except I can't find a TCP/IP stack for 2.x.
So basically I can simulate MW's entire town using VMware...
Complete with the authentic Windows 95 Paint inefficient file format, here ya go:Show Image(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12364&stc=1&d=1283561303)Show Image(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12365&stc=1&d=1283561303)
And I can simulate your whole city with my Gateway2000.Show Image(http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/habitat/HABITAT4/simcity2.gif)
SC2000 is bloated and full of memory leaks, also plays dirty with Windows. It'll even lock an i7 if you let it run long enough, 64-bit protected OS notwithstanding.
My laptop can run something like 300-400 instances of Windows 95 inside VMs.
So basically I can simulate MW's entire town using VMware...
I know a guy who took some ancient Mac Performa, put Sim Tower on it, and let it run continiously for something like 1.5-2 years. Stuff like the date and the bank balance ran into integer overflow issues and got stuck as some crazy values, but the game still ran away.
SC2000 is bloated and full of memory leaks, also plays dirty with Windows. It'll even lock an i7 if you let it run long enough, 64-bit protected OS notwithstanding.
Wow, looks strange in color. I used to play this, way back when, then later sim cities got so processor hungry. I could barely run the last one on my p4. I don't get why.
I remember Sim City 2000 on the old Hewlett Packard (90 Mhz, 64MB of RAM, Windows 95). Ran fine for hours.
Actually, emulating windows 95 (in virtual PC) is so bloody slow, and there's no drivers for it. It's actually easier and faster just to run it natively. Games that change music (CD audio or MIDI tracks) will also have issues of hanging or long pauses when it changes due to not being a pentium 1 processor.
Wouldn't it just be easier to get something to make the game run ultra fast?
Virtualization != Emulation. As for drivers - depends on what VM software you are using. VMware is pretty good for supporting old OSes. Most of them make the guest OS think that they are running on a system with old hardware, even Windows 3.11 recognizes VMware's LAN drive out of the box.
As for CPU speed - if you were running 300 virtual machines on the one quad core CPU, you'd never have any issues with the CPU being too fast.
For old games, DOSbox is excellent. That is a proper emulator in that it will emulate either a 286, 386 or 486, depending on your preference.
I don't like DosBos. I like true MS-DOS.You mean DOSBox?
I was never happy with DOSBox, but then that was years ago and I see now that the version number has leaped. My main issue was that it wouldn't properly slowdown games without also slowing down Windows-global behaviour. Nice to simulate a 16MHz performance level when you're gunning at mechs, not nice at all when you're trying to navigate a mouse cursor through menus. Has it been fixed?
I find many music problems are resolved with a few choice files inserted into Windows from my trusty old Creative SB16 Setup CD. A couple lines in the Registry, the usual SET BLASTER= and one restart later all is well ... at least in the DOS-era games I play.
... Armada 2525, MoO/MoO2, Ascendency, MW series, Privateer series, SC/SC2K, Empires (I think that's what it's called), some D&D-like questy/heros things, wizardry, ultima 1-4 ... all abandonware these days, I know there's others I can't recall atm.
Incidentally my bold claim about SC2000 might really be about the Vesa Doctor add-on thingy that's necessary to get the game running on modern machines, I think it might interact with video BIOS memory in mysterious and sinister ways. Maybe SC2000 isn't that buggy at all ... though maybe it is. Can't really test one without the other.
when you've got some old computers, what else would you do?
Put a real OS on them?
Actually, there's a lot of people who install windows 9x on their old computers (or even windows 3.1). I'd suggest you take a look at the vintage-computer.com forums.
But obviously you're not a vintage or old computer enthusiast; so you have no idea what runs best on older computers (nor do you even have a library of old software which is very picky and specific, especially about hardware). I sincerely doubt you even own a computer with a 8088 or pentium 1 processor.
I'd suggest you try something else besides a quanta-computer built macbook and explore different hardware and software.
Who was talking about Windows 9x (or even windows 3.1)?
Reread what I wrote, I never said anything about a Microsoft product (didn't even mention the word "Microsoft" or "Windows"). Read the thread title.
Bill Gates stole DOS from Seattle Computer Products. (http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson04_10_98.htm)
If you studied computer history you'd know that....
Bill Gates stole DOS from Seattle Computer Products. (http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson04_10_98.htm)
If you studied computer history you'd know that....
MS-DOS is a mircosoft product.
Unless you consider reverse engineering legal. If you don't, then just about every IBM-compatible computer from the mid-2000s on is illegal - EVEN IF IT WAS MADE BY IBM. (Yes, even IBM eventually started using PhoenixBIOS - a reverse engineered clone of the original IBM PC BIOS, that Compaq commissioned for the Compaq Portable.)
Actually, there's a lot of people who install windows 9x on their old computers (or even windows 3.1). I'd suggest you take a look at the vintage-computer.com forums.
But obviously you're not a vintage or old computer enthusiast; so you have no idea what runs best on older computers (nor do you even have a library of old software which is very picky and specific, especially about hardware). I sincerely doubt you even own a computer with a 8088 or pentium 1 processor.
I'd suggest you try something else besides a quanta-computer built macbook and explore different hardware and software.
... Apple lost against Microsoft when they sued them for Windows. Thankfully it all goes back to the early days when the companies and people that created the stuff basically just gave it away ... Those that are making money from them are pretty much perverting that as capitalists.Apple sued Microsoft long before that; they'd hired MS to make an FP BASIC for the AppleII ... all went well until they saw that MS was free to license AppleSoft BASIC (their code) to anyone who wanted it, ie: anyone who wanted to make an AppleII clone. Worse, Microsoft later sold ever-improving versions of their BASIC to Apple's competitors (Commodore, etc). And pulled the same stunt yet again on IBM, offering to sell MSDOS to the public (so IBM couldn't control distro and so MSDOS could run on any compatible machine, whether made by IBM or not). Microsoft never gave a **** who made the machines, just as long as there were always more machines to run Micro-Software on. In that regard they've actually done computing society a great favour.
Don't bother with isntantkamera. He's just a dumbass. I put him in the spam filter for a reason.
You should see his Unix pubic hair.Ugh. I think I'd rather run Windows or gargle razor blades. Thanks for offering to share though, lol.
I never actually used QDOS, neither the 86-DOS nor Sinclair QDOS versions I've just discovered on Wikipedia.
What about PCDOS, DRDOS, and NDOS? Are they "clean roomed" off MSDOS?
I hope MW has extra storage in his PM inbox.
Yeah, it's one of these (submodel 045, not all original however) (http://www.ps2project.org/index.php?title=PS/2_Model_56_%288556%29).
Would be running OS/2 (y'know, something worth bothering with) except I can't find a TCP/IP stack for 2.x.
IBM DOS/360 - or just use the modern name, z/VSE. ;)I think I disagree with Apple DOS. Should DOS versions that don't run on x86's be included?
Sinclair QDOS
SCP QDOS
MS-DOS
Apple DOS
So on, so on.
Win95 is like, 24.
It had 95 when I got it, then I installed 2.1. Determined there was no easy-to-find TCP/IP stack so I went 95. Then went OS/2 again for testing some stuff, then back to 95.
I'm surprised the FDD isn't toast.
The media, if cared for, will last a long time...problem is finding media that has been cared for well since day 1Does that include all the time in shipping and sitting under those glaring lights at Wal-Mart?
Why else would you use disks if not for storage?
Every now and then I have to recover data from ancient disks, even that's not a real issue these days since internet (abandonware) archives are always growing.
About the only useful place floppies have left on modern computers is emergency boot sessions or mobo firmware recovery. Even those roles are being stolen by live CDs and USBs. Even old computers can interface well with most modern technologies. Only the most venerable machinery still requires floppy options.
Does that include all the time in shipping and sitting under those glaring lights at Wal-Mart?
Maybe we'll disagree on this. I know many instances where drives were well maintained (regularly cleaned and lubed and calibrated) and disks carefully stored in near-ideal conditions ... and still see high failure rates, say about 1-in-10 disks at least partly corrupted after 1 year, 4-in-10 after 2 years ... although I'll admit that any which survive intact after the first few years seem to last indefinitely.
Most HDDs (notorious IBM Deathstars notwithstanding) seem to last at least 2-3 years of heavy use or at least 5 years normal use ... very few survive much beyond that, although more modern (SMART) drives tend to fail in more of a gradual-erosion manner than a catastrophic one.
...[MS-DOS] is a real operating system
(which is the foundation for all windows versions).
Don't bother with isntantkamera. He's just a dumbass.
I put him in the spam filter for a reason.
Hey InstantKamera - at least you are with good company!
Where did that Gr1m dude go?
Better mobos have redundant BIOS chips.
no Microsoft guru here, but I'm pretty sure that is untrue. NT?
... [strike]ME[/strike] is unworthy to be called 9x. It was an abomination and the worst OS Microsoft has ever released ... It was 10x worse than Vista pre-SP1.1) yes, worst OS Microsoft *or anyone else* ever released, no question, no doubt.
I ran it on my home PC ...Me too ... er I mean, I as well.
To be fair, Vista did have a lot of good things going for it. Microsoft's first attempt to globally use clean modular processing and protected I/O (something real OS platforms like linux have emphasized for many years). New and Improved Registry and driver models which were surprisingly actually both new and improved. I approve of the inclusion of new gimmicks like WEI which are intended to help idiot users use their computers properly.
I disapprove of Microsoft's sudden realization that they should act on 3D. Hey look, WinXP looks exactly the same as it did 5 years ago, that's not right because we made all those service packs, so let's make the new one look really fancy regardless of the performance hit. (Y'know, some of us feel that our hardware would be better dedicated to running our programs than more useless eye-candy in our OS.)
I disapprove of the 26,383,773,304 background running processes and all the other bloat. You can't open Notepad with less than 8GB RAM unless you enable swapfile?
I disapprove of the Microsoft=Adminstrator and User=Subadministrator hierarchy.
Win7 has sandboxed much more (though not all) of the system. It's more streamlined and lightweight but still unacceptable. At least Microsoft actually implemented the System Nag in a decent way that doesn't make you want to punch your computer. By the time they've pushed out Win8 it should be almost as good as linux was a few years ago. Well worth paying another $250-$500 for a Genuine copy.
It's not actually as resource hungry as people say it is. I was running Vista on c2d's with 2 or 3gigs, once the drivers got sorted out, and playing fps's with little or no difference from my xp systems that had more power and more ram.
Problem is that very few people had 2-3GB of RAM or Core 2 Duos at the time. Single core Pentium 4s and Athlon 64s with 0.5-1GB of RAM was the standard. Vista did not run well on these systems. It was unreliable when launched, and had all sorts of compatibility issues. XP worked, people stuck with it.
ME wasn't that good, but it'd definitely not as bad as Windows 98.
I think I disagree with Apple DOS. Should DOS versions that don't run on x86's be included?
Well, I think I found the new minimum hardware config. Problem is the browser isn't liking vBulletin's URL scheme, so I'm on the hunt for another (it can read the main forum index but not get into subforums or threads. Interestingly, it does work with the newer version of vBulletin).
80286-10, 2.6MB of RAM.
I ran it on my home PC when it came out until XP came out. It didn't strike me as too bad (then again, I was maybe 11 years old or something, so my standards weren't as high as they are today) but I do remember specifically the lack of MS-DOS mode, which was a problem when trying to run old games.
Better still mobos don't have a BIOS at all.
Yeah, NT was based off DEC VMS and OS/2. ME was the last Windows based on MS-DOS.
Bill ruined windows by disabling MS-DOS to the user!
ALL versions of windows have MS-DOS lurking in the back somewhere
Doesn't the XBOX even have some legacy MS-DOS stuff caked in it too?
Well, there was no MS-DOS in the NT systems to disable, so yeah, whatever.
Not the NT ones. They have MS-DOS emulation, but no actual DOS itself. The 64-bit versions of XP/Vista/7 removed this.
Bare in mind that the whole point of NT was to completely remove all 16-bit DOS from Windows. The codebase was rewritten from scratch by DEC engineers that MS brought in.
Now you're just taking the piss.
I thought Mark Lucovsky did most of the programming for NT?
No, just becaue windows uses the NT kernel doesn't mean there's some MS-DOS legacy stuff in the background. It's impossible to remove MS-DOS unless Microsoft completely rewrites windows eliminating all previous comaptibility.
The codebase was rewritten from scratch by DEC engineers that MS brought in.
Go Go Reading Comprehension Skills!
You don't need code of an operating system to achieve compatibility with it in another. Even Unix systems like Linux or OS X can support a load of Windows apps using Wine.
But as you so correctly pointed out, NT, 2000 and XP did not support a load of all games, this was because they were designed to use the underlying DOS environment which was not present in the newer Windows. A lot of 90s games will have "Not compatible with NT" written on the back.
Well Games like "Siege of Avalon,"
M$ disabled many DOS functions
even though windows (in itself regardless of the NT kernel), still has many legacy stuff all deep in there.
NTVDM, in concept, is quite similar to running DOS in a virtual machine, although with a lot less overhead. (Also, early versions actually were EMULATORS, because they needed to run on platforms other than x86.)
I wonder why MS didn't include some full DOS virtualization mode with XP. Granted machines of the day didn't have the virtualization tech we have today, but on the other hand - it's MS-DOS. It's little more than a glorified machine console monitor...Yeah, it's not much more than just a file execution prompt with some integrated commands. I suppose the full MSDOS "package" with protected mode EMM386, SCANDISK, DEFRAG, DRVSPACE, EDIT, DEBUG, etc might begin to qualify as something approaching a "real" OS. You might even claim that TSRs could allow some sort of multitasking.
I don't think Microsoft will ever blacklist or de-activate my pirated copy of Windows 3.1.
I grew up Military. Switched to modern talk.I can imagine it now ...
Sir, now please tell me the next 5 characters from your Activation Code.
7NX1P, as in "l77t, Noob, haXors, fsck111, Pwnage"