That is equivilant to the amout of space that Windows 3.11 and DOS 6.22 take up when fully installed, so it is very space conservetive.Ĭalmira is also distributed under the GNU GPL, and is programmed in Delphi1.
With all of the enhacements, it may take 15 MB. A basic calmira installation, (with no add-ons), only takes 2.5 MB of HDD space.
#CALMIRA XP NOT LOOKING LIKE XP 32 BIT#
With all of the add-ins, about the only diffeence between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 is no LFN support, (but this can be bypassed by using 4DOS descriptions as the displayed filename), limited ability to run 32 bit programs with a hacked Win32s, and no FAT32 support, (and this can be bypassed by installing Weinger’s DOS 7.10).Īlso, even with a very small HDD, (my 486 HDD is only 125 MB), calmira takes very little space. Example, you can change the startup logo, add the “It is now safe to turn off your computer” dialoque, add a shutdown screen, replace the Task Manager, add the Windows 95 start menu banner, a 95 like control panel, a newer registry editor, and many other enhancements. There are also many different add-ons available that will get Windows 3.1 to look more like WIndows 95. I have no idea about CalmiraXP, as I have only used that in VPC. It looks identical to the Windows 95 desktop as soon as you set it up. If there was a way to disable that, it would be very good.Īs far as apperance is concerned, Calmira looks great even in 16 color mode. The only bad part about it is that it covers up your desktop with the blue backround.
It even gives you 3D drop menus like in the 9x releases. I prefer Mask98, as it mimics the Windows 95 style down to a “T”. You still have the old Windows 3.1x style minimise, maximize and close buttons, but that can be also patched with PATCHDRV.EXE, or with Mask98. To set it as you shell, simply change the one setting in SYSTEM.INI go read “shell=c:calmiracalmira.exe”. While running Calmira only takes 2 MB of RAM, and the advantage to it is that you get a more modern interface. Since it replaces program manager as the Windows Shell, there is no performance loss. Actually, when I ran 3.1 a year ago on my old 486DX/33 with 8 MB RAM, it performed rather well as a shell.
0 kommentar(er)
