<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Windows NT 3.1 &#038; KVM	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/</link>
	<description>Fun with Virtualization</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 17:35:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: malxau		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-183534</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[malxau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 17:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-183534</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433&quot;&gt;neozeed&lt;/a&gt;.

I doubt anyone other than you &#038; me cares about this, but the other day I stumbled onto the realization that Visual C++ 6 (and older) will target NT 3.1 - you just have to tell it to.  It won&#039;t run on NT 3.1, it won&#039;t do anything to help you avoid using functions that don&#039;t exist there, and the CRT might include those functions (use static linkage!) but when trying to move code backwards that uses newer C++ etc, it can still be helpful.  (Write up in the website link.)

Also, Visual C++ 2 is a much nicer compiler than 1.1/Win32 SDK and targets NT 3.1 by default.  It also runs on 3.1 although the IDE warns you that doing so is a bad idea.  I never had access to 2.1 or 2.2, but for this type of thing 2.2 seems like a bit of a holy grail if you can find it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433">neozeed</a>.</p>
<p>I doubt anyone other than you &amp; me cares about this, but the other day I stumbled onto the realization that Visual C++ 6 (and older) will target NT 3.1 &#8211; you just have to tell it to.  It won&#8217;t run on NT 3.1, it won&#8217;t do anything to help you avoid using functions that don&#8217;t exist there, and the CRT might include those functions (use static linkage!) but when trying to move code backwards that uses newer C++ etc, it can still be helpful.  (Write up in the website link.)</p>
<p>Also, Visual C++ 2 is a much nicer compiler than 1.1/Win32 SDK and targets NT 3.1 by default.  It also runs on 3.1 although the IDE warns you that doing so is a bad idea.  I never had access to 2.1 or 2.2, but for this type of thing 2.2 seems like a bit of a holy grail if you can find it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173880</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173880</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173865&quot;&gt;Yuhong Bao&lt;/a&gt;.

It&#039;s a matter of going through a 1.1 proxy, and of course webserv 0.3 didn&#039;t exactly see wide scale deployment behind reverse proxies (did they even exist in 1993?) as such.

Instead I ported Apache 1.3.4 onto NT 3.1, and that works fine.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173865">Yuhong Bao</a>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a matter of going through a 1.1 proxy, and of course webserv 0.3 didn&#8217;t exactly see wide scale deployment behind reverse proxies (did they even exist in 1993?) as such.</p>
<p>Instead I ported Apache 1.3.4 onto NT 3.1, and that works fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Yuhong Bao		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173865</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yuhong Bao]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173865</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433&quot;&gt;neozeed&lt;/a&gt;.

HTTP 1.1 should be backward compatible with 1.0 on the server level, unless the server is buggy.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433">neozeed</a>.</p>
<p>HTTP 1.1 should be backward compatible with 1.0 on the server level, unless the server is buggy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173593</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173593</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173462&quot;&gt;Michael Casadevall&lt;/a&gt;.

I know it&#039;s not &quot;modern&quot; but I did manage to get Apache 1.3.4 to compile with the Visual C++ 1.0, and even better it runs on NT 3.1.. the Win32 SDK version is just too old it seems, although I havent dived in to see the difference between the old 3.1 SDK/DDK and the Win32 SDK &#039;final&#039; release.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173462">Michael Casadevall</a>.</p>
<p>I know it&#8217;s not &#8220;modern&#8221; but I did manage to get Apache 1.3.4 to compile with the Visual C++ 1.0, and even better it runs on NT 3.1.. the Win32 SDK version is just too old it seems, although I havent dived in to see the difference between the old 3.1 SDK/DDK and the Win32 SDK &#8216;final&#8217; release.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173465</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173465</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173462&quot;&gt;Michael Casadevall&lt;/a&gt;.

I would probably start with an old apache....

I&#039;ve never really tired to be honest, I only used the older &#039;serweb&#039; thing as it too was a product of 1993.  Running on NT 3.1 really limits you to Visual C++ 1.0 16/32 bit versions, and Watcom C/C++ version 10.  It may be entirely possible....  As Apache sure did run on NT before, although I have no idea what features of NT they really relied on.

Of course Windows NT 3.5 is a lot more API solid than 3.1 as a lot of things just aren&#039;t in 3.1...  And don&#039;t forget the TCP/IP stack in NT 3.1 is also a 3rd party solution.  The Microsoft stack didn&#039;t appear until Windows NT 3.5.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173462">Michael Casadevall</a>.</p>
<p>I would probably start with an old apache&#8230;.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never really tired to be honest, I only used the older &#8216;serweb&#8217; thing as it too was a product of 1993.  Running on NT 3.1 really limits you to Visual C++ 1.0 16/32 bit versions, and Watcom C/C++ version 10.  It may be entirely possible&#8230;.  As Apache sure did run on NT before, although I have no idea what features of NT they really relied on.</p>
<p>Of course Windows NT 3.5 is a lot more API solid than 3.1 as a lot of things just aren&#8217;t in 3.1&#8230;  And don&#8217;t forget the TCP/IP stack in NT 3.1 is also a 3rd party solution.  The Microsoft stack didn&#8217;t appear until Windows NT 3.5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael Casadevall		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173462</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Casadevall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2016 09:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173462</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433&quot;&gt;neozeed&lt;/a&gt;.

Right, but the WinSock API however was stable; Winsock 1.0 was defined as a specification, and 1.1 had several implementations such as Trumpet Winsock.

A part of me is kinda curious what it would take to get a modern apache to run on old NT.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433">neozeed</a>.</p>
<p>Right, but the WinSock API however was stable; Winsock 1.0 was defined as a specification, and 1.1 had several implementations such as Trumpet Winsock.</p>
<p>A part of me is kinda curious what it would take to get a modern apache to run on old NT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neozeed		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173433</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neozeed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173433</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173431&quot;&gt;Michael Casadevall&lt;/a&gt;.

This pre-established iis...we are talking 1993, years away from when Microsoft cares about the Internet.   At this point the Ip stack is out sourced to a 3rd party and at this point TCP/IP is really a Check box, rather than a strategy..

The tide doesn&#039;t really turn until 1997, with the forced inclusion of its on Windows NT 4.0]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173431">Michael Casadevall</a>.</p>
<p>This pre-established iis&#8230;we are talking 1993, years away from when Microsoft cares about the Internet.   At this point the Ip stack is out sourced to a 3rd party and at this point TCP/IP is really a Check box, rather than a strategy..</p>
<p>The tide doesn&#8217;t really turn until 1997, with the forced inclusion of its on Windows NT 4.0</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael Casadevall		</title>
		<link>https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/10/06/windows-nt-3-1-kvm/comment-page-1/#comment-173431</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Casadevall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=6460#comment-173431</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[IIS on Windows NT advanced server probably only supports HTTP 1.0. If you ran Apache mod_proxy to rewrite the request, you could probably get it to work. It might even be possible to get a modern apache to run on that antique; the underlying APIs Apache are relatively standard, and the docs say 2.4 even work on Windows 2000. Aside from service management code, its probably doable with a bit of work]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IIS on Windows NT advanced server probably only supports HTTP 1.0. If you ran Apache mod_proxy to rewrite the request, you could probably get it to work. It might even be possible to get a modern apache to run on that antique; the underlying APIs Apache are relatively standard, and the docs say 2.4 even work on Windows 2000. Aside from service management code, its probably doable with a bit of work</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
