general DOS question
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: general DOS question

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    148

    general DOS question

    Hi, I am woundering if anybody can tell me if the DOS that comes with Microsoft Windows is a "full version" DOS.

    I had been talking to a friend of mine who had DOS 6.22, he then moved to windows 3.1, Windows 95 and eventualy Windows ME.

    He told me that the DOS that comes with windows is not a full version DOS. On the other hand, I have been told by someone else that Windows relys on DOS to work, and in a essance, Windows 98 is not a operating system per say but rather a graphical GUI for DOS. Yet I was also told that windows has its own kernel and aparently uses a difernt shell then DOS.
    In snatches, they learn something of the wisdom
    which is of good, and more of the mere knowledge which is of evil. But must I know what must not come, for I shale become those of knowledgedome. Peace~

  2. #2
    pretty much, your friend was right.. :-\
    .::nataS is WaTchiNg::.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    11
    your friend is right, the DOS you get from microshit with winblows is not the full version, the full version is prolly awailable for download several places, so if you need the full version, do a search on the web ( i recomend www.google.com )
    the full version of dos has noumerous commands so it would be a good idea to find some book about DOS if you want to learn about all the commands

    [BRLAN_CREW]ReZpawner

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    148
    10X, that clears up my confusion. I have a DOS book with all kinds of command and tricks and stuff. And my friend has the full version if I want it, but I just wanted to clear up my confusion.

    Thanks for sorting that out.
    In snatches, they learn something of the wisdom
    which is of good, and more of the mere knowledge which is of evil. But must I know what must not come, for I shale become those of knowledgedome. Peace~

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    66
    Your friend was also right about the GUI stuff. Windows is actually a GUI for DOS. It basically runs on DOS. I was actually not sure about that. Thanx for the info.
    With great power comes great responsibility.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    90

    Lightbulb Mistake!

    Friends, Romans, Countrymen..

    Just had to point this out:

    Its true that a version of Windows is just a GUI for DOS, but that version is the now hardly used Windows 3.1 and 3.11 versions. All versions from Windows 95 ( including 95 itself ) are all stand-alone operating systems that don't require DOS to run. DOS 6.22 i think was the last full version of DOS. Windows95 comes with somethiung called DOS 7.0, which some say is that last version DOS but its bullcrap. Windows is an operating system on its own and isn't dependant on DOS anymore.

    Just thought I'd clear that up for you guys. And an afterthought, DOS was one of the MOST stable operating systems around (and prolly still is). YAY for command-line OSes!
    I blame you cos my mind is not my own, so don't blame me if I trespass in your zone!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    485
    Just to try and clarify this a bit more:

    If you are running Win 3.x, Win95, Win98, or WinME then Windows sits on top of the DOS code that was loaded when you booted the PC - which means that things like config.sys, autoexec.bat work the way they were intended to. In other words these versions of Windows all boot from a DOS kernel - so it is DOS that has the first option as to how to set up your PC.
    This also has some advantages in trying to fix problems, as your whole OS is based on a basic DOS layer, with Windows being loaded on top of it, and if things go pear shaped (or you think you have a really nasty virus, or H/W problem), then you can boot directly to DOS and see what happens, and sometimes fix the problem with command level commands .. (exactly the same as any *nix OS !!)
    With WinNT/2k/XP the situation is very different, as you are now running an OS that does not have a DOS core - it uses its own kernel to boot up. This may possibly be more reliable and/or secure, but it means that when you open a DOS window on your box, all it is doing is emulating the DOS command shell.
    However on the plus side you should find that any bat file you create (a sequence of DOS commands) will work correctly, whatever version of Windows you are running.
    To call Win98 a GUI is very misleading, as it will install its own drivers to handle the H/W on the system, but if it comes down to it, then there is still the option to go back to the command shell and see what is really going on.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,207
    The DOS which ships with Windows 95 (DOS 7) is essentially the same as the previous version (6.22). However, I've noticed that a lot of the nice things they added in DOS 5 were removed in DOS 7 - like the help system plus loads of other menu-type things.

    Of course the reason is probably that they thought you wouldn't need those features any more and they were trying to keep the size down (Win95 is still about 5x bigger than DOS 6 or something)

    As to DOS's actual place within the OS, darkes has it about right.

    Originally DOS did quite a lot of work, like I/O and stuff, but Windows gradually took more and more of it over, and it is not used very much after boot time in Win98+ except for running DOS boxes.

    However it does still keep DOS loaded and *CAN* use DOS drivers, but their performance is quite limited.

    This is in complete contrast to Windows NT 3.0 + which does not use DOS at all, and has no "DOS mode", cannot use DOS drivers, does not keep DOS loaded and its DOS boxes only emulate things.

    Most other intel OSs like Linux, Netware, etc use DOS very little if at all (only for booting in the case of Netware; not at all for Linux)

  9. #9
    Senior Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    551
    RejectKnowledge:

    Since you think Win9x is a standalone OS and doesn't need DOS, why don't you try deleting command.com out of your root directory and let us know what happens, mmmkay?
    Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    90
    problemchild:

    I don't think Win9x are stand-alone operating systems. That is what is taught in just about any certification about Microsoft Operating Systems that you will encounter, including the A+ Software Certification, amongst others.

    Unlike DOS, Win95 onwards are all true 32-bit operating systems. One of their most important feature is being able to break the 640KB memory limit of DOS. As for the delete the COMMAND.COM, I think I will as soon as I get home. Just to see what happens.

    Cheers
    I blame you cos my mind is not my own, so don't blame me if I trespass in your zone!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides