Printable View
Now I know that windows 9x runs on top of dos. and 3.1 does too right? well the thing with windows xp not letting you boot straight to dos (pressing f8) , is that becuase xp doenst run on top of dos?
And I'll put two questions in one post. Is there a disk defragmenter that i can run in dos so that it doesnt take so friggin long?
I don't think this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but I'll give it an answer anyway.
Yes, Windows 3.1 and 9x run "on top of" DOS. Windows 2000, XP, and NT, however, do not. They still have DOS functionality (go to Start -> Run -> cmd or command). You can't boot straight into DOS on 2000, XP, or NT, but you can still use a 9x boot disk and what not.
I don't believe there is a built-in defrag program in DOS, or the DOS shell, but you could probably find something online and run it in DOS or in the shell.
Hope this helps,
D'elTarra
actually, i think only win 3.x runs ontop of dos...
while anything 95 and after emulates dos...
-----------------------------------------------------------
dos comes with a defrag.exe
it's not any faster than the win version...
the length (in time) of a defrag is due to the size of the harde drive, and how much data is stored on it...
well the thing is that windows kept writing to the hard drive and the defragger had to restart and thats why the damn thing took so frigging long. I didnt have any apps running, only windows, but i guess it was writing to the swap file er something? i dunno but it kept restarting the defragger. it was really annoying. so thats why i wanted to run it in dos becuase dos only runs one program at a time. How do you run the dos defragger?
To my knowledge, only later OS's actually emulate DOS (XP, 2000). The rest of the still have DOS as the base level of the OS, and then a GUI built on top of it.
sorry DelTarra, only windows 3.x runs ontop of dos...
windows 95 emulates dos...
/edit
maybe there is some confusion about booting into dos...
when (in win95) you choose to shut down and boot into dos mode,
windows95 does not run ontop of the 16-bit dos!
That was actually one of the touted "new features" of Win95. The fact that once it was loaded it was running without dos. Meaning that it is a standalone OS, not just a graphical interface to DOS.
Windows 95a ran ontop of dos...MS lied and told every one it was stand alone...but if you tell a windows 95a box to shut down you will get the screen telling you its now safe to turn off your computer...at that point type the clear screen string (clr I think sorry dont remember) and hit enter, this will give you a DOS propmpt for DOS 7. Note that this dosnt work in 95b because they have the keyboard turned off after you shut down windows, win 98 was the first MS opperating system that dos was nolonger needed for.
Quote:
Originally posted here by Krimlin
well the thing is that windows kept writing to the hard drive and the defragger had to restart and thats why the damn thing took so frigging long. I didnt have any apps running, only windows, but i guess it was writing to the swap file er something? i dunno but it kept restarting the defragger. it was really annoying. so thats why i wanted to run it in dos becuase dos only runs one program at a time. How do you run the dos defragger?
I've run into that several times before - what I do is first ensure that everything is closed (antivirus programs, firewalls, etc.) as you have done. Then I took it further and completely disabled screen savers and any kind of power saving functionality. That has always done the trick for me to get around the defrag constantly wanting to restart...
Guys, anybody who thinks Windows9x isn't a GUI for DOS should try deleting command.com out of the root directory and let us know what happens. :D
This is an old debate, and the truth is obfuscated by the fact that Microsoft has *shamelessly* lied about this to the point that certain well-known certifications are now towing the Microsoft PR line. The fact is 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.
It was a gradual process, removing DOS.
- Windows 3.1 and earlier ran on DOS and relied on DOS for all its file I/O (although graphics, keyboard etc, were implemented by Windows drivers not BIOS or DOS ones)
- Windows 3.11 for workgroups added a 32-bit kernel and added the *option* to do direct I/O from Windows ("32 bit file access") - although this option was not on by default and sometimes caused problems
- Windows 95 turned "32 bit file access" on by default and it worked a lot better - they added the ability to multitask windows apps (as well as DOS ones, which wfw311 could do)
- Windows 98 essentially changed nothing
- Windows ME is a bit weird, I don't know a lot about it
At the same time
Windows NT 3.1 was developed from OS/2 essentially, with IBM. It used no DOS at all, and only implemented a "DOS box" - where you could run some DOS commands.
Windows NT 4 I think added a better DOS box where you could run more DOS things, but it was still only an emulation.
Windows 2000 and Windows XP were built on the NT kernel, hence did not use DOS.
The old DOS defragmenters will only be able to unfragment DOS filesystems, f.e. FAT12 and FAT16, *not* FAT32 or NTFS
I was on the front lines as a PC tech at the time so hopefully I can fill in some info..98 finally got rid of the DOS underlay. this really cleaned up stability. ME was a expensive service pack.. basically MS was pushing 2000 for nonhome use and every one who had a computer already had a copy of 98 so out came ME to try and get a little more revenue out of 98 before XP came out. XP is the unification of the 9.x/ME line with the 2000 line meaning that MS is no longer competing agenst itself in the home market.Quote:
Originally posted here by slarty
It was a gradual process, removing DOS.
- Windows 3.1 and earlier ran on DOS and relied on DOS for all its file I/O (although graphics, keyboard etc, were implemented by Windows drivers not BIOS or DOS ones)
- Windows 3.11 for workgroups added a 32-bit kernel and added the *option* to do direct I/O from Windows ("32 bit file access") - although this option was not on by default and sometimes caused problems
- Windows 95 turned "32 bit file access" on by default and it worked a lot better - they added the ability to multitask windows apps (as well as DOS ones, which wfw311 could do)
- Windows 98 essentially changed nothing
- Windows ME is a bit weird, I don't know a lot about it
At the same time
Windows NT 3.1 was developed from OS/2 essentially, with IBM. It used no DOS at all, and only implemented a "DOS box" - where you could run some DOS commands.
Windows NT 4 I think added a better DOS box where you could run more DOS things, but it was still only an emulation.
Windows 2000 and Windows XP were built on the NT kernel, hence did not use DOS.
The old DOS defragmenters will only be able to unfragment DOS filesystems, f.e. FAT12 and FAT16, *not* FAT32 or NTFS
So what is windows ME made up of? And why does it blow so badly?
By made up of I mean....Well xp is made up of 98, ME and 200 am i correct? So what was ME a combination of?
Windows ME is just Windows 98 with 16 bit DOS completely removed. IE, the computer boots directly into 32 bit protected mode and doesn't use DOS (16 bit real mode) drivers to initialize. The reason it sucks so hard is that MS wasn't really interested in ME as a viable OS. It was just something to tide them over until XP was released. Consequently, they didn't put too much effort into testing it. Also, since the Windows EULA states that you are eligible for upgrade pricing for only two versions of Windows after the one you own. So that meant that 95 users had to buy a full copy of XP and not the upgrade version. And with MS making most of its new products only compatible with 98 and higher, 95 users don't really have a choice.Quote:
So what is windows ME made up of? And why does it blow so badly?
By made up of I mean....Well xp is made up of 98, ME and 200 am i correct? So what was ME a combination of?
And oh, I think you misunderstood. XP is not "made up" of 98, ME and 2000. It is just a slightly modified version of Windows 2000 with a DOS compatibility layer added.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
Ummm... not really. Some of them are newer versions of the Windows family, but none of them are really "made up of" each other. Let me see if I can explain this.... I know some will take exception to what I'm about to say, but this is it in a nutshell.Quote:
Well xp is made up of 98, ME and 200 am i correct?
Since the early 90s, Microsoft operating systems have been developing along 2 parallel paths. One the one hand, you have the consumer line that traces its roots back to DOS and includes Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and Me. These were basically graphical shells that ran on top of DOS (see my post above), although their exact relationship with DOS was somewhat complex. Microsoft chose to build its 32-bit Windows 95 line on top of 16-bit DOS to maintain backward compatibility with older applications, especially games. What you ended up with was a hybrid 16/32 bit system that was quite frankly an unstable mess, but that had very good backward compatibility. Because of its compatibility with games, it was marketed toward the home user where stability wasn't considered to be that important.
The problem was everybody knew that this architecture was a mess and people were sick of these things crashing all over the place, so Microsoft went to great lengths to try and hide the DOS underpinnings from users for PR reasons. In fact, they flat out lied about it. Windows95 and Windows Me were both marketed as "no more DOS", when in fact all they did was throw up a pretty splash screen to cover up the DOS boot sequence and set the Windows shell to start automatically. While the Windows boot splash screen is up, you can hit <Escape> and just watch the DOS commands roll by..... by the time of Windows Me, they took it a step further and removed the icon for the command prompt and the "Restart in DOS mode" option fron the shutdown menu. But nothing changed. All they did was remove a couple of icons so people wouldn't know they were there. If you want a command prompt in Windows Me all you have to do is open the "Run" dialog box and enter "cmd" or do what I said in my earlier post.
Then on the other hand, you have the corporate line of Windows that goes back to Windows NT and and includes Windows 2000. NT was developed in the early 90s from Microsoft's involvement with IBM and OS/2, and it was written from the ground up as a 32-bit operating system. There was no DOS anywhere in there, and because you didn't have the hybrid 16/32 bit architecture, it was very stable in comparison to the other line. The problem was that because it didn't have DOS underpinnings, backward compatibility with older applications and games sucked. So it was marketed toward the corporate segment where stability was important and people weren't supposed to be playing games anyway..... at least in theory. :D
The problem was that it was very expensive and impractical for Microsoft to develop and maintain two completely different lines of Windows, and it was very confusing for consumers who didn't understand the difference between them. Windows XP represents the merging of these two lines. It is a consumer-oriented Windows, but it is based on the NT/2000 kernel for stability. The DOS-based Windows line is dead now after WinMe.
There, did you get all that? Clear as mud now? :D
Dang, I need a beer now......
[edit]
No, no, no..... I hate to keep disagreeing with you, but this is WRONG. You have bought into the Microsoft marketing hype. There is NO DIFFERENCE between Windows 95, 98, and Me as far as DOS goes. All they did was remove the option to exit the shell from the shutdown menu to try and fool people.Quote:
Windows ME is just Windows 98 with 16 bit DOS completely removed.