Calmira & Windows 3.x: Win95-lookalike total conversion with Long Filenames
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- Calmira was first released in 1997 to bring a Win95-inspired shell replacement to Windows 3.1.
With the latest release, Calmira Reborn, paired with MS-DOS 7, for long file name support, plus some other tools, it's totally possible to make it a fully working Windows 95 total conversion.
And yes, it even supports Long Filenames, the real thing, even for 16-bit applications!
00:00 Intro
00:41 Calmira 1.0
03:18 Calmira II 3.3
04:18 Into Long Filenames, with FreeDOS
06:32 Long Filenames, with MS-DOS 7 and Calmira LFN 3.32
08:05 Calmira Reborn
08:28 Win95 Window Decorations with Mask98
09:59 Logn Filenames for 16-bit Applications?
12:33 Total Conversion, with a custom boot logo
13:01 Conclusion
Links:
The "Alternate OS Shell" Series by TPC:
• Alternate OS Shells
Calmira 1.0, 2.0, Calmira II, Calmira LFN:
www.calmira.de/
Calmira Reborn:
huntertur.net/calmirar.html
Calmira 3.4:
www.yushatak.com/calmira.html
Calmira XP:
www.abzone.be/
Calmira Longhorn & Blackcomb:
web.archive.org/web/201202251...
4DOS:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4DOS
Win32s:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s
About DOS Filenames, 8.3 and LFNs:
www.adoxa.altervista.org/doslfn/
winworldpc.com/product/long-f...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.3_fil...
Windows 3.1 patches to run on MS-DOS 7.1 with FAT32 and LFN:
www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?...
Windows 3.x on FreeDOS:
virtuallyfun.com/2021/07/27/f...
web.archive.org/web/202108112...
Long Filenames for 16-bit Apps, on Win95 only:
archive.org/details/name_it
Long Filenames on Windows 3.1, IFA / Instant File Access:
www.sharewarejunkies.com/8ik3/...
www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?...
Mask98 / PRWin98:
www.win3x.org/win3board/viewto...
archive.org/details/16-32-bit...
Visit also THE PHINTAGE COLLECTOR website at www.thephintagecollector.ch for insights into my retro computer collection.
Copyright @ 2024 THE PHINTAGE COLLECTOR, Gianpaolo Del Matto. All rights reserved.
Featuring Music with kind permission by rootkitty: "What if you fly?"
/ rootkitty
Theme Music composed by Abdallah El-Ghannam.
www.fiverr.com/abdallahghannam - Наука та технологія
I'm an author of Calmira Longhorn, and even I did not noticed that there is Calmira Reborn. I was in contact with author of Calmira LFN at that time.
This episode was perfect. I remember buying a Compaq 486DX2 around the year 2000 and setting up Calmira II on it. So much nostalgia. I also remember re-encoding MP3s to be playable on that machine, and THAT was a real struggle.
Said something similar on your last video but I love stuff like this.
I imagine for those who went through most of this back in the day, it might even have been enough to stick with 3.11 (well, probably 3.1, I had 3.11 on my 486DX2 however).
Thanks for sharing your story today. Your love of old tech always makes me smile.
You're welcome. Glad you like it.
I was never brave enough to do this back in the day. Love it.
4dos was great not only for file descriptions. It had an enhanced batch language, allowed shell aliases, file name completion, small tools like a list program among other things. I couldn't live without 4dos in the Dos days.
I never had vanilla 4DOS, but just NDOS, which was a licensed (and I think maybe trimmed-down) copy included with Norton Utilities.
But I later had the 4OS2 on OS/2, though just the shareware version.
It is currently sold as Take Command TCC/LE
This is neat. I was planning to install Calmira again on some of my PCs and didn't know there was a more recent version available now. This will be usefull for me.
You‘re welcome!
As a fan of these alternative environments, it's fascinating to see how you can not only turn 3.1 into 95, but even make it actually function better!
In what way was it functioning better?
@@LofoteLess ram usage than 95
@@UltimatePerfection Ok in means of "less resource-hungry" - ok, if you have not much RAM, then in runs better.
But for me to be "better functioning" it only counts, whether I can do my stuff I want to do better (e.g. in less steps or faster or with less fear that a crash will occur) ;)...
@@Lofote Well, programs tend to crash if they run out of RAM, especially on such old systems with bare-bones or non-existent virtual memory.
@@UltimatePerfection Virtual memory was already available but yes, if you had not enough RAM then you needed operating system that were less functional but also less resource hungry. If you had the RAM you went with Windows NT, which required even more, but also gave you much more stability :)...
Ooh yeah, 4DOS -- or the version I had from Norton Utilities, NDOS -- added quite a bit of functionality to the DOS command line.
Nice one, but I still prefer the original look of Windows 3.1 (I've always used it that way). I plan to get as many useful programs as possible to work with Win3.11 (useful ones) or maybe develop new ones. We'll see. Keep up the good work ;) I'm really enjoying your videos.
I used Calmira on my Win3.1 Compaq Presario 425 CDS before i upgraded to Win98. I don't know if Calmira works on NT3.1/3.5 as I never tried that back then. I didn't know there was an updated version from a couple of years ago. Its nice to see the program still being taken and updated by different authors.
I remember using Calmira on my IBM PS/2 ValuPoint back in the day. It was a great replacement shell as younger me at the time couldn't stand having no taskbar. Great video and thanks for pointing out the extra versions of Calmira that exist!
Anytime. Glad you like it!
Calmira also offered a function to close a window by clicking with the right mouse button on the minimize/maximize buttons. So from a functional standpoint no need to replace the title bar anymore.
Thank you for your amazing video.
I lovef win 3.11 it was my first windows with DOS 6 on a 386 with 33 Mhz. I learned most of what I know on it.
Know what's the funny thing, the Linux Gnome 3 stupidly makes the client applications draws the title bar adornment.
Even Win311 somehow did that right.
Thank you for another great video 😊
BTW, does M. Know-It-All caught a cold, his voice is funny 😜
The flu, indeed
"We have Windows 95 at home."
I used calmira with 4dos for lfn back in the day
You need a KernelEx for Windows 3.x 😁
Great stuff, I used to have a multi boot environment and aimed for this kind of interoperability, including DOSEMU in Linux having access to the same partitions and stuff in paths (batch files as shortcuts that lived in a zip file, decompressed to a ram drive).
I wonder if there is any way to persuade progman.exe from NT 3.51 to run, it was had nested groups (was replaced later by the 3.1 version when the win95 shell was brought in), similarly there was winfile.exe with long filenames that disappeared.
I've got a fairly fully loaded Calmira XP, running on Windows 3.11 and MS-DOS 6.22, with full long filename support.
I'll say this much though, *never* run MS-DOS defrag utility on such a partition, it'll totally trash the filesystem LOL!
I have found that it can successfully be defragmented if connected or mounted under a Windows 95 system though, so there's that.
When using MS-DOS 7 as the underpinnings, there's no defrag utility included, so no threat there.
Danger comes, if one would install old versions of PC Tools or Norton Utilities, which came with LFN-unaware defrag utilities as well.
Just as a random thought, without having looked at it: FreeDOS has a defrag utility as well, which actually may be LFN compatible and safe to use.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Yeah, I'm a bit of a bonehead like that. I made a point to start with a basically proper era correct cookie cutter setup, starting with MS-DOS 6.22.
I just wanted to see what all I could do with it, and I've left those dangerous defrag utilities on there, just to keep the file set complete, but I definitely know not to use them.
The only reason I even bother using Win95 to defrag it is so I can null out all the remaining free space for sake of archival compression of the disk image.
Running the utilities such as speed disk from ndos was the same joy
I really enjoy total conversion videos! I remember very, very well struggling to upgrade my 486 to Windows 95, first because of the upgrade itself borking the system and then because of performance issues. Had all of this existed in 1995, I might have gone this route instead-- it's not like I had any 32-bit software yet anyway. On that note, though, with all that bespoke software running atop Windows 3.1, out of curiosity, how well does it perform, especially relative to Windows 95?
I have it on a real 386, both this total conversion and Windows 95 side-by-side.
Calmira is quiet heavy as well for a 386, so the two run at comparable speeds, with the Windows 3.1-based setup being just a tiny bit snappier. But that's just for the UI part.
Of course, when running other applications, the Windows 3.1 is still ahead of Windows 95, as it copes a lot better with 4 MiB RAM than Windows 95 does.
Any low-end 486 (
Heck i just installed notron desktop on top of my Windows 3.1 installation. Why didn't i just know about this 😯 guess i have to reinstall it on my old IBM PS/2
Oopsie, sorry for causing double work ;-)
Could you post a virtual disk image of what you made?😊
I never tried Calmira 1.0 only 2.0, 3.3x, 4 and LNF
Actually there is one issue with Calmira LNF and Mask98 working together. Becouse of integrated 95 style decoration in the Calmira windows Explorer windows, the right controlers for close, maximize and minimize buttons masses up functions.
09:50 Just like Norton Desktop :(. It also only converted Program Manager groups once at installation, but software that was installed later wasn't added as Norton Desktop groups.
Specifically with Calmira, would you say it's good for day-to-day use on a Win16 system?
Any suggestions how can I create an animated bootscreen for Win 3.1 myself?
Windows 3.x doesn't support animated boot screens.
The effect shown in the video is achieved by two things:
1. disable Windows 3.x default boot logo (by copying c:\windows\system\win.cnf to c:\windows\win.com)
2. have MS-DOS 7 (aka the "DOS" from Windows 95/98) and put the desired logo into c:\logo.sys
In essence, the logo you see is not displayed by Windows 3.x, but by MS-DOS 7.
Oh thank you! I'll try it next time I'm installing Win3.1!
Mr KnowItAll should have told you about the issues with Windows 3.1x and FreeDOS !
That‘s the proof he doesn‘t actually know everything ;)
Where can you download this?
Please check the video description, it’s all linked in there
iirc, Win 3.1x need patching to avoid corruption issue with FAT32 partition.
I heard that Win-OS/2 3.1 can run on DOS versions/brands where Windows 3.1 can't but I don't know if that's true
OS/2 modifies Windows 3.1 to run, but as a fact, a so modified Win-OS/2 still runs on plain PC/MS-DOS or even DR DOS.
I so demonstrated such a shared windows setup here:
Sharing Windows 3.x? Yes, with my OS/2 WARP & MS-DOS 6 multi-boot setup (Colani Restoration Pt. 3)
ua-cam.com/video/QtxNrv56vFM/v-deo.html
And furtherly here again, for running the Win-OS/2 from another DOS version, but still inside the DOS MVDM.
Into the OS/2 Multiple Virtual DOS Machines: A better DOS than DOS after all?
ua-cam.com/video/7EbvxH9BXYQ/v-deo.html
Windows runs on any contemporary DOS of the time, wether IBM DOS, DR/Novell DOS or PTS DOS.
Some tweaking may be required, and for early DR DOS 6 a patch was needed.
The latter wss begause Microsoft sabotaged DR DOS (that was the AARD pseudo-defect the deliberately placex into Windows 3.1).
Maybe you‘re referring to the latter, as this broke Windows on DR DOS for no reason.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Yes, I know that and for that reason I wonder if "IBM Windows" could run on official FreeDOS.
According to some comments I read on some video of the official FreeDOS UA-cam channel that patch for FreeDOS is based on DR/OPEN/leaked-DOS code and that is why they can not accept it for an open source project.
This is remarkable for the degree to which it is simultaneously useless and fascinating. 😁
^^
These yellow boxes are extremely distracting and annoying in various part of the videos. Having 12 boxes appear in the span of under 2 minutes is just way too much.
Thanks @bluefirexde, I received similar feedback already, though I appreciate it nevertheless.
I'm thinking already how to improve that for future videos, to keep a good balance, while still fitting in all that content.
It's definitely not my goal to annoy people, but to deliver informational value.
I'm not saying you should of shouldn't use them but I have no beef with them personally
I have to agree. I don't generally like criticizing small channels, but trying to offer constructive criticism: I can split my attention two ways without a problem, so I can hear what you're saying and I can see what you're doing. But I can't split my attention three ways. I try to just ignore the yellow pop-ups, but the typing sound draws my attention to them, and they sometimes cover the part of the screen I'm trying to see. Also--- I don't know how other people feel about Mr. Know It All, but, TBH, I'm not a fan. I understand that you may be trolling the trolls, and more power to you on that, but it basically means your audience *has* to put up with trolling. Just a thought--- thanks for the awesome and unique videos you put out! :)
@@MSThalamus-gj9oi Thanks for the extensive feedback. I'd rather receive criticism like this instead of none at all, or just downvotes. So I appreciate the time you put into this.
It's a good example with the threefold attention split, that's a totally legit point. I haven't though about this, but yes, indeed it is too much.
As noted, I'm in consideration for improvents on this behalf.
@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Perhaps the info boxes can be made slightly less distracting by removing the animation and typing sounds, and also the colors could be tweaked to be less vibrant so it doesn't grab attention as much. They are part of the channel's charm though, so these tweaks should applied to subsequent info boxes if they appear in quick succession or as a continuation of the previous one. Or differentiate between important and less important information then apply accordingly.