Hacker News Reader

Comment by ultramancool | Hacker News Reader

Sounds similar to the China Dos Union MS-DOS "7.1" which used the DOS from Windows 98 and included FAT32 support, long file names and a CD-based installer.

https://winworldpc.com/product/ms-dos/7x

View on HN

I remember coming across that many years ago, as far as I remember it was a rather interesting group of Chinese DOS-using hobbyists. They also came up with a "Windows 3.2" that fit on a floppy and was also based on the 7.1, creating possibly the only 3.x version of Windows with long filename support. The latter was released under the name "PMWIN3.ZIP" and apparently can only be found in the Internet archives now: http://web.archive.org/web/20070128175800/http://www.cn-dos....

(The rest of cn-dos.net is also worth checking out if you read Chinese or find Google Translate to be sufficient; this is an example of one of the forgotten-yet-very-interesting parts of the Internet.)

Interesting, do the open-file dialogues and winfile support LFNs in this ? (@ work and can't look right now).

Yes:

http://reboot.pro/uploads/monthly_04_2008/post-5-1208637282....

I'm not sure how they did it though, maybe when I have the time I'll look into it since this is a very unusual software.

probably copied the NT3.5 file manager and hacked it to work with win32s? that's probably easier than modifying the win3.11 binaries to hold file name buffers than what's needed for the 8.3 scheme.

(or maybe they binaries are actually pretty similar, so all it needed was a slight API change for file name lookup)

7.1 wasn't just a version number that China DOS Union made up but is the actual version number of win98's (and 95 OSR 2's) DOS.

This is most likely derived from the Apple DOS source code that was released a while back, with new features added. This makes it quite different from the MS-DOS you describe, which is just a repackaging of components from Windows 98.

http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/apple-ii-dos-source-cod...

There is very little code in common between Apple DOS and Apple ProDOS. A disassembly of ProDOS is much more likely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com