general DOS question - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: general DOS question

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    883

    Rant

    Get your story straight. All you are doing is confusing any newbies that may be reading this thread. You first say 9X is stand alone, then you say that it is not. Well, all this does is make newbies say "WTF" and go to another site. Please help newbies out don't confuse the crrap out of them.

    Originally posted here by RejectKnowledge
    All versions from Windows 95 ( including 95 itself ) are all stand-alone operating systems that don't require DOS to run.

    Originally posted here by RejectKnowledge
    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.
    The COOKIE TUX lives!!!!
    Windows NT crashed,I am the Blue Screen of Death.
    No one hears your screams.


  2. #12
    Senior Member roswell1329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    670
    Hmm...don't quote me on any of this, but the way I understand it (from my Win98 MCP cert class), Windows 3.1 and 3.11 all were graphical user interfaces (GUI's) operating on the DOS 6.2+ OS. Windows 95 was a stand-alone operating system, but still relied on command.com, autoexec.bat, config.sys, and io.sys as the startup files for backward compatibility. The DOS shell in Windows 95 was a stripped down version of DOS used as a "shell" for explorer.exe. Windows 98 and on (in the 9x strain of Windows) were also stand-alone OS's that used command.com as a startup file (just like DOS did), but the other startup files that DOS used (like autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc) were no longer required. DOS is no longer any part of the OS, and the DOS window available in all versions thereafter were simply "emulators" that mimicked the old DOS functionality. Anyway, just my 2c.
    /* You are not expected to understand this. */

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    121
    jezz, with all the disagreement about windows being or not being dos gui, dos dependant, or not, is it any wonder that it does its job so poorly, i wonder if its programmers are as confused as this forum.
    what is love but contempt for hate?

  4. #14
    Senior Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    551
    Man, I don't know what they're teaching in these cert classes these days.....

    Windows 9x and Me use 16-bit DOS as a bootstrap to launch into the 32-bit Windows. DOS boots first, then starts Windows. It's a slightly different mechanism, but it's just like adding win to your autoexec.bat file back in the day. Don't believe me? Check this out:

    There is a file in your root directory called MSDOS.SYS. It's a text file. Get rid of the hidden, system, and read-only file attributes, and open it in a text editor. Change the line BootGUI=1 to BootGUI=0, and add a line LOGO=0. When you reboot, you come up in DOS. Want to start windows? Type win. Change the Windir and WinBootDir paths and you can install multiple versions of Windows. DOS 7 is just like DOS 6 except that it's been hacked to add VFAT long filename support. Look in C:\Windows\command and there's your DOS commands.

    Sheesh.... kids today.
    Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    90
    Apocalypse, that think was supposed to be "think". I don't "Think" 9x etc are stand-alone operating systems. Its what is taught in the Cert courses. My bad. I apologize.

    And the point I was making is what roswell made, only more elaborately than I could have. thanks, roswell.

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

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    25
    Actually while we're on the subject, I've been looking for some info on "Net Use" and "TelNet" commands and haven't had much luck. A lil nudge in the right direction would be appreciated.
    [glowpurple]It all works out in the end.[/glowpurple]

    But that\'s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    Dennis Miller

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    148
    vengeance_rtf: You asked for some information on Net use and telnet commands, I did a web search and it apears that this site

    http://home.att.net/~gobruen/progs/d...dos_other.html
    http://www.lights.com/hytelnet/telnet.html
    http://www.pccontrolanywhere.com/help/telnet2.htm

    might be of some help to not only you but also me. It has some information on net use and telnet as well as other DOS utilities.
    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~

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    485
    Originally posted here by indolent
    jezz, with all the disagreement about windows being or not being dos gui, dos dependant, or not, is it any wonder that it does its job so poorly, i wonder if its programmers are as confused as this forum.
    To have my final word on this one - you will find that most programmers are not confused about the way windows works. To summarise what most people have said - there are two very distinct flavours of Windows:
    (1) The Win 3.x/9x line which relies on DOS to boot the system.
    3.x was a pure GUI, but Win98/ME is far more than a GUI, as it will use its own drivers instead of the default DOS drivers.
    (2) The Win NT/2k/XP line which has its own kernel (doesn't use DOS).

    Does any of this matter? Well yes, it does in some cases.

    If you are running old software - either old commercial software or old games - then you may find it impossible to get it to run correctly under WindowsXP. The reason for this is that the software is relying on DOS really being there - it is making requests directly to the DOS layer that XP is unable to emulate.

    Which is why many people still use Win98 to play games ....

    I should have added that this is the reason that many companies choose to keep running Win3.X, as it does the job it was intended for. Why upgrade when you don't have to ???

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20
    I read the book "Window's ME Annoyances" that Win 3.x, 9x, and ME are all DOS reliant. Windows NT and 2000 aren't and are stand alone.

  10. #20
    Senior Member geepod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    211
    i agree totally with problemchild's posts !

    forget your cert courses as they are only as good as the Instructor ( i know I am a Microsoft Certified Trainer)

    yes win 95 98 xp etc etc are ful 32 bit OS'es and they contain support for 16 bit for backward compatability but 95 and 98 still require DOS elements to load with in the first place that is why you see dos based commands from batch files on start of these OS'es.

    NT4.0, 2000, XP etc are fully self reliant OS'es with no DOS needed for loading etc they use a completely diffferent Memory model and handle hardware completely differently.

    to cut it short 3x needs dos to exist before installation, 95 and 98 can install on a clean HDD but uses DOS as a preempt fro loading device drivers etc etc
    NT 4, 2000,XP etc all stand independent and load there own low level kernel for memory handling and booting etc when loading !

    As for the A+ cert course remember that that is CompTIA and not a Microsfot course
    Our destiny is to endure all hardships that we encounter along the path to what we perceive to be true and worthwhile !

    The Head foundation
    Please give generously

Posting Permissions

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