Developer Forum

I am motivated to post this for discussion.
It is an example of similar postings here.


My point is if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and waddles
like a duck, and in this case if it tastes like a duck who cares if it
is something else?

I am a HARD-LINER DOS user and DOS software supplier (and minis and CP/
M before that) since 1972, running compilations of essentially the
same SOURCE on any MS-supported computer, but if my clients use my
software ona DOS -running AT or 386, or on a Windows machine or even a
MAC machine running a DOS emultator, and all my software works (since
1985), who cares if the process is moderated by a software level?.
After all, it fianally executes on an Intel-type CPU (or MAC emulation
of one) and that is what counts in bit manipulation terms. Bits IN,
bits OUT; and the relation is as expected.
The ONLY problem I have ever met with DOS programs is XP's inhibition
of utilising the RS232c ports directly; but there are several software
fixes for this.

The original Cmd.exe came with WinNT, was 32 bit, and emulated MSDOS 5 Command.com. It would run most DOS batch files and applications with the major exception that such programs could not directly access hardware. Cmd.exe has powerful command extensions that have been enhanced with each subsequent version. Cmd.exe runs in windows protected memory and is not DOS.



--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

You completely mix up things. MS-DOS5, Win98, WinXP or Vista are MicroSoft
Disk Operating Systems (MSDOS). Command.com or CMD.exe are shells which means,
they are normal user programs with the purpose to interact with the user through
the keyboard and screen, but has nothing to do with the operating system. There
are also many other shells which can be used in Microsoft's operating systems.
Even the current 32 bit MSDOS version (Vista) supports the old int21 OS API
(but not the 64 bit version, but this is the fault of AND and not MS), so
old DOS5 programs which use this interface (and not direct hardware access)
still run in Vista.

Old 8086 programs still run on a Pentium4 (in a virtual mode called V86)
and old DOS5 programs still run in XP (in a virtual machine). Although
the processor is for marketing reasons called PENTIUM4 and not 80786
and has many additional instructions and addressing modes, it is still a x86
processor. Although the current MS OS is is for marketing reasons called
Windows Vista and not DOS9 and has many additional functions and a new API,
it is still a MSDOS version.

The MSDOS operating system is Io.sys (and in older version msdos.sys) and must reside in memory. Command.com is the command interpreter provided by Microsoft and resides on disk (a ramdisk works well for the command interpreter and temp files). Cmd.exe is the shell used with WinNT based OSs.


The last version of MSDOS was ver. 7, first released with Win95. The version that supports FAT32 is usually referred to as 7.1
There have been many disk based operating systems before and after MSDOS. Just because an OS uses a disk does not mean is it is MSDOS, as Bill Gates's lawyers rightly insist.

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

I think it's the reverse; you're doing the mixing up.

MS DOS say 2.0 to 6.22 are DOS. Windows 95,98 and ME run under and can
be made to boot to a DOS command prompt (and even give a DOS version
number).

Windows NT, 2000, XP and Vista do not require and don't boot to DOS, but
do as you say, include a DOS 5 command prompt emulator which runs in v86
mode. There is a very similar (but different) 32-bit text mode console
program called cmd.exe. AFAIK this doesn't require a NTVDM.

The fact that many batch files and commands familiar from the DOS
command prompt also work in cmd.exe is convenient, but care should be
made to distinguish the two (as there *are* differences in command sets)

I believe that any 16 bit .com or exe programs which get invoked from
this command prompt get run in a VDM (to allow compatibility), but this
doesn't mean that cmd.exe is "DOS".

Although the current MS OS is is for marketing reasons called
I disagree.

This is ridiculous and absurd on its face. XP and Vista, for instance,
may be operating systems which use disks, but it is simply
irresponsible to call them MSDOS. MSDOS as supplied by Microsoft ended
with the 95/98/SE/ME series of operating systems, and to say that the
NT/2K/XP/Vista series is MSDOS is simply foolish.

--
Paul Bartlett

The final version of MS-DOS was 8.00, released with Windows ME in 2000. It
required a non-official patch to use without Windows ME. The last release
of MS-DOS as a stand-alone package was 6.22 in 1994. Which IMO, was the
only good version of MS-DOS upto that point (way too many bugs
previously...). MS-DOS was officially declared "dead" by Gates with the
release of Windows XP in 2001: "Today it really is actually the end of the
MS-DOS era." The last version of MS-DOS that didn't require a patch was
7.10, released with Windows 95 version B through Windows 98 SE.


Unfortunately, there are differences between releases of version 7.10. The
early version of 7.10 supports FAT32 (Win95B). The later versions of 7.10
support what is commonly called "FAT32X" (Win95C/98/98SE/ME). "FAT32X" is
FAT32 with LBA, i.e., BIOS extended Int 13h support, for hard drive capacity
larger than 8.4Gb. Windows 95 and Windows 95 version A used MS-DOS version
7.00 which was FAT16.




These versions of Windows required and ran on top of MS-DOS: Windows from
1.0 through 3.11, Windows for Workgroups, Windows 286, Windows 386, Windows
95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows ME. Windows 95 was the first
version where MS-DOS wasn't a separate purchase.

These versions of Windows don't require MS-DOS to run and have a varying
forms of MS-DOS support known as "DOS-box", console, or VDM (virtual DOS
machine): Windows CE, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows .NET
server, Windows 2003 server.

I haven't researched Vista or "Windows for Pens" etc... Quite a few others
(other NG's) have stated that there is no MS-DOS support of any kind in
Vista...

Well, that's my understanding anyway... I wonder why MS doesn't have an
official "History of MS-DOS with Technical Details" web-page?


Rod Pemberton

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:55:54 +0200, Herbert Kleebauer < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >




By your argument, Linux is a DOS, and if supplied by Microsoft, would
be MSDOS. On the other hand, versions of DOS 5 that were ported to
ROM and work without any disk are not DOS, though they are produced
under MS auspices.

I recall running DOS 3.2 on diskless machines, so what should we have
called it? - the boxes said MSDOS (or was it PCDOS? - same, same) and
VER identified it as that.

Incidentally, "Disk Operating System" is MSspeak for "Dirty Operating
System" - the original name for what became DOS 1 was QDOS, for "Quick
and Dirty Operating System". MS sold an OS it didn't have to IBM,
then bought QDOS from Seattle Computer Products for $50 000.

--
T.E.D. ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM ) Remove "gearbox.maem" to get real address - that one is dead

Group: comp.os.msdos.misc Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2007, 7:06pm (CDT+1) From:
XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Rodemberton)

script:


I didn't know about the patch. Thanks for the info.


This was also the last version that was 16 bit. MSDOS v.7>> v.8 were 32
bit.
>> Windows 95 was the first version >>where MS-DOS wasn't a separate >>purchase.

Which BG had been trying to achieve for years. Finally accomplished by
requiring W9x to run on a 32 bit DOS.

FWIW: The NT series is based on OS2. (Written mostly [the good parts]
by IBM. Customised [ *** ed] by MS.) Even at that, formatting a
bootable floppy on W2K resulted in a win98 DOS. I understand that XP
results in a winme DOS. (Even _if_ Bill claimed that XP was the end of
the DOS era. It's not the first lie he's told.)

salaam,
dowcom

To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.

--
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

MSWindows is television,Linux is radar.

Take a look at Microsoft Word. The last version with a character screen
output was Word 2.0 (I'm not sure about the version numbers, so they
maybe are not correct, but doesn't matter here). The 16 bit Windows
version (Word 6.0) or the 32 bit Windows version (Word 97) was
probably a rewrite in large parts with many new features. Now,
if MS decided to not call it "Word 6.0" but "Sentence 1.0", then
you would claim the last MS Word version was Word 2.0 and anything
newer is something completely different. But because Microsoft
didn't change the name the exactly same program is "nothing completely
different" but just a "newer version". A name doesn't matter, it's
the thing behind the name which is important. And Windows XP is nothing
but an evolution (even if completely rewritten from scratch) and
not a revolution. The same user API as in DOS5 (the int21 interface)
is still there so most of the "well written" DOS programs will run
without problems.

But to claim that CMD.EXE is not DOS is like to claim that the spell
checker of Word 97 is not Word 2. CMD.EXE is a shell and has nothing
to do with operating system nor does it provide any virtual DOS
emulation to run 16 bit programs.

Maybe the DOS-line of operating systems from Microsoft will end with
the 64 bit Windows versions. And that is the fault of AMD which
removed the V86 support of the processor when in 64 bit mode. But
I still hope that Microsoft will correct this hardware defect by
software before the 64 bit versions become the main stream, so we
also have an MS-DOS (called VISTA64) available in the next years
which will execute the good old DOS com programs without any problem.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:03:10 +0200, Herbert Kleebauer < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >



Being optional, CMD is not DOS and neither is COMMAND.COM. Both are
applications that run over their respective operating systems. Your
argument is that replacing COMMAND.COM with 4DOS would make the OS not
DOS.

The command interpreter is not the operating system it runs on.
People who think it is are invited to explore the world of Unix/Linux
shells.

You really should check your arguments for vulnerability to ab absurdo
and reductio ad absurdum responses before posting them.

--
T.E.D. ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM )
Remove "gearbox.maem." from address - that one is dead

I stand corrected. I downloaded a WinMe boot image and found that it is indeed MSDOS 8 and not a crippled version of MSDOS 7 as I had been led to believe by others.





--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

Exactly what I said in the quoted text above or in my first posting:

Command.com or CMD.exe are shells which means,
they are normal user programs with the purpose to interact with the user through
the keyboard and screen, but has nothing to do with the operating system. There
are also many other shells which can be used in Microsoft's operating systems.


Where did I say that? I exactly say the opposite: It doesn't matter that
command.com is replaced by cmd.exe in XP, it's still MS-DOS.






Maybe you should read a posting before before you reply to it.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:13:25 +0200, Herbert Kleebauer < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >



I reread it and decided not to post. At that point, CJ and Spooky got
all over me and the keyboard, and somehow, it got sent. (CJ and Spooky
are cats.)

--
T.E.D. ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM ) Remove "gearbox.maem" to get real address - that one is dead

This is incorrect. if you look in the windows\system32 folder of 2000 xp
or vista you'll find 2 files called ntio.sys and ntdos.sys. they are the
kernel io.sys and msdos.sys files(slightly modified) from msdos 5. you
can examine them with a hex editor and you'll see for yourself. some
have suggested that these files have something to do with cmd.exe's
emulation but that is not the case, since a patched version of the
win2000 cmd.exe(google for win95cmd to see) that runs under win95 works
just fine without these.

also if you load the explorer file manager in xp/vista, right-click on a
floppy drive and choose fomat then in the dialog place a check mark in
the box next to create an ms-dos startup disk and click start(make sure
you have a blank floppy in that drive). windows will format that floppy
and place ms-dos 8 on it. go ahead try booting it on any machine capable
of booting dos.

The winxp home sp1 that I have installed on an old machine also has the
ability to boot to a repair utility from the installation dvd and what
a surprise! it's dos again. The only point to this is, that the news of
dos' death apparently hasn't reached microsoft yet.

buck