Talk:DOS extender

message: Modified much of the original content, added too much information about stuff that's now irrelevent.  Hopefully appropriate and up to Wikipedia's standards, this is my first major contribution. --X3J11 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified much of the original content

message: I've been trying to improve the first few paragraphs of this article, because they sound rather clumsy. They must have been writen by someone who doesn't natively speak English. Anyway, I removed the sentence "Most XP users know nothing about them, but are occasionally happy to have DOS based partitioning, recovery or similar products, partially faking the "Win" look, and based on DOS extenders of course." because I can't understand it at all, and I was therefore unable to improve it. If anyone can figure out this cryptic gibberish, please improve it and put it back in the article.
Nick Warren 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone seems to have been kind enough to put it back in for you. :/  There's a lot in this article that (I think) should be changed/removed, but I'm afraid to do it since other folks have done it to what I wrote (which is kinda disheartening).  But there's lots of extraneous junk that's been added. X3J11 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoprehensible sentence. 

message: As far as the facts:
Wasn't Quake I compiled using DJGPP, usind CWSDMI as the DPMI host?
Did DOS/32A actually provide a Win32 emulation? I thought it was a DOS4G/W replacement? WDOSX did, though. I should know, because in a past life I did this WDOSX thing mentioned in the article. ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.250.63 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Quake 1 was originally built with DJGPP using CWSDPMI.  As for WDOSX, it was one of the best extenders I ever used, and if I were still trying to write DOS software, I'd probably still be using it.  (So I guess that makes you Michael T, huh? =) X3J11 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, DOS/32A doesn't provide any Win32 emulation (or even most of the DOS/4GW API ??). It's just a smaller (faster?) replacement for the bloated DOS/4GW without swapping support (but supports more total memory). Armslurp (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some remarks 

message: Does anybody know how feasible it would be to make an extender to run 64 bit windows programs on 32 bit windows?
Of course I could just buy Vista x64, but I don't want to deal with any unsupported drivers.
The main issues I'm thinking of are:
1. Still need separate 64 bit shared libraries
2. Registers not preserved on context switch (not a problem for DOS extender)
3. Need to switch to 32 bit mode before system calls (like switching to real mode in DOS extender)
Probably it would be same doomed short-life half-done stub like Win32s was for 16-bit Windows and Win-OS/2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.196.70 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows extender? 

message: Since Pascal 7.0 Borland passed 3 IDE builds: turbo.exe - real-mode IDE, very slow because of exnesive Overlays used, bpw.exe - IDE for Windows 3.x, and  DOS-extender based BP.exe
Later they did the same for Borland C++ package. 
Both packages included redistributable 16-bit DPMI server/DOS extender  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.196.70 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borland C++ and Pascal 

message: About the second sentence:
:DOS extenders were initially developed in the 1980s following the introduction of the Intel 80286 processor (and later expanded upon with the Intel 80386), to cope with the memory limitations of DOS.
Is this really the case? I read that VCPI came first, and VCPI was 386-only. Later Microsoft came along and developed DPMI, which worked on the 80286 Protected Mode as well. It was released into the open and VCPI was dropped in favor of DPMI, now also supporting the 286.
Am I right?
‣Andreas•⚖ 13:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  80286, later 80386 – wasn't it the other way around? 

message: For someone mainly interested in the history it doesn't provide information on dates or historical developments, whereas for someone looking for a DOS extender to use it doesn't make it easy to compare them.
The line about Windows is also questionable, it presents the NT branch as exceptional even though in today's world NT essentially is Windows, and as I understand it the 9x branch basically used DOS only as a bootloader and 16-bit compatibility layer, doing the operating system nitty-gritty inside the 32-bit kernel instead of calling the DOS services. Depending on your definition of DOS extender they might still technically qualify, but it leaves a wrong impression with the reader if you aren't explicit about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long list not particularly useful 

message: According to the creator of the "Ancient DOS Games" series on YouTube, Tyrian 2000 not only was written in Pascal but also used a 16-bit DOS extender when the combination "alone is really weird. Most games at the time were using 32-bit DOS extenders."
I would place it myself if I was completely certain that it would be a worthwhile game to note, but since I'm not, I'm leaving this on this Talk page instead of actually editing it in.
CtrlAltCuteness (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrian 2000 - Possible notable program (game)