Running a dos program query?

[Corpse Cruncher]

We have at work a program that runs on dos, (CA$HLINK an old accountancy package) This should not be a problem as the computers, are all on win 98 or win 98SE. Except mine which is on xp and I assume won;t run a dos program like this?

I have loaded it onto a clean installed 98, and it is there, when I try to run it it says not enough ram memory. It also says to alter or add a line to the config sys, (along the lines of memory high umb, roughly). The line is already there and is exactly what it asks for. Despite that the program still won't run and says there is not enough ram memory.

It has enough memory and ran before before the re-install, there was far more items installed that were hogging the memory than now.

I installed Ca$hlink as you would normally via run and I did it through the start in dos. The latter seemed to install more, but the results are still the same. I used the command 'install,' I am not familiar with DOS so just chose a the file name of the program and it worked. Same result, it won't run and I get a warning that the program has done something illegal and will now close, notice showing up as well.

Any ideas or how to solve this oddity?

[kevin]

right-click the executable and select properties. One of the tabs will let you set various settings for Compatibility mode.

We've found XP actually better at running DOS programs than Windows 98.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx

[geni]

We have at work a program that runs on dos, (CA$HLINK an old accountancy package) This should not be a problem as the computers, are all on win 98 or win 98SE. Except mine which is on xp and I assume won;t run a dos program like this?

XP should in theory have better backwards compatibily than 98.

[Jekyll]

If that doesn't work, you can install DOSbox.

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

It will emulate a DOS pc with the appropriate amount of memory.

You can even play games on it :D.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why would you assume that XP won't run it?

I have on my desktop at all times a "DOS box" running 4NT. That's where I work. I'm told there is something called "Windows Explorer," but I suspect it is some kind of graphical absurdity for manipulating files.

~~ Paul

[Jekyll]

Why would you assume that XP won't run it?

Belt and braces approach.

Some software, mainly old game,s do demand access to the hardware and need to be run on an emulator.
Odds on an accountancy package will be fine but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unless perhaps it's CFOSim.

~~ Paul

[Mongrel]

Also in Win98 there are a few versions of DOS you can get to from Windows. Click Start and then search, all files and folders and type in the box *DOS* (with the '*'s). There should be 3 which I can't remember properly :(, DOS for games, DOS with XMS (I think) and another one - sorry it's been a while.

If the XP compatibility mode doesn't work then one of them 3 should

[Dark Jaguar]

Well since 9x is based on DOS pretty much while XP is based on NT, 9x has better backwards compatibility. I suppose something that does little more than go through a database should be fine, but I have found that XP is simply not to be trusted when running old games. That backwards compatibility wizard is a joke if you ask me, because it basically just takes you through all the shortcut options you have most likely already seen by now anyway (I know I did). So it's either the wait for dosBox to eventually reach version 1 status, or use 9x and just hope your hardware has some legacy support in there.

[Starthinker]

There is a config.nt and autoexec.nt that you should be using for your DOS programs. If you have a DOS program that needs to run in XP and needs config.sys or autoexec.bat entries, then go to the windows/system32 folder, look for those two files, and modify them as you would the older style files. We have all WinXP programs and still have many DOS based programs and some didn't work until I modify those files. This worked even when using compatiblitiy modes didn't.

[Corpse Cruncher]

Why would you assume that XP won't run it?

I have on my desktop at all times a "DOS box" running 4NT. That's where I work. I'm told there is something called "Windows Explorer," but I suspect it is some kind of graphical absurdity for manipulating files.

~~ PaulMight be because I am a nincompoop and a technical one at that.:blush:

[Corpse Cruncher]

Thank you all. I'll have a go and see what I can do. Who knows at the end of the day I might become technically savvy and not a nincompoop. Ask me again in a million years when I evolve :D

[rockoon]

Well since 9x is based on DOS pretty much while XP is based on NT, 9x has better backwards compatibility.

Not necessarily.

Windows 9x clearly prevents a DOS program from jumping into full protected mode on its own, which was a semi-common thing in the late DOS era.

It sounds however like the OP's problem is related to a 'standardized' dos extender such as emm386 or qemm, which both 9x and NT/XP should be emulating.