DOS-WINDOWS combination???why?no offense

iceman · 05-20-2003, 10:54 PM

The reason why I submitted this new thread is that Im just to much curious about these things.

Well!, Why is it that windows is dependent on the Disk Operating System ion order to function. Is there any ways where in windows operating system can stand on its own..!!!! without utilizing a DOS under the OS itself....!

Im just curious....

Can anyone answer my question...thanks a lot...

iceman · 05-20-2003, 10:57 PM

To all who will answer this....thanks a lot guys.>!!!!

Shakie · 05-20-2003, 11:18 PM

Well... not all Windows versions rely on DOS.

Windows 2000 and XP don't.

Ecniv · 05-20-2003, 11:39 PM

I was about to say. NT and later OS's dont need DOS whatsoever, they just have a DOS emulator so thet we can utilize the commands that DOS has.

mrdinkel · 05-21-2003, 05:43 PM

Um... you could put the bios flash on a disk with command.com, and then just start up with that. Easiest way to do it.

iceman · 05-21-2003, 10:55 PM

thanks a lot guys!.

Shakie · 05-22-2003, 12:13 AM

very welcome. check your PM.

funf · 06-14-2003, 09:47 PM

What does he mean by "DOS" ?

Can an operating system operate without a dos when it is going to reside on a disc ?

Whether "DOS" is inside o under Windows it is still there !

Ofcourse MSDOS cant read NTFS filing systems, that makes me nervous and why I have used 2k & XP on FAT32 formats.

Noteworth, 2k even has an enhancement to some DOS commands. for instance :-

I use XCOPY for a simple and straightforward backup routine, making report to log file. In 2k I can make a DATE command with an {ENTER} to indicate that it worked that day.

In 98 the routine hangs waiting for the {ENTER} keypress, untill timeout.

chalk · 06-15-2003, 05:16 PM

Wasn't DOS, (which microsoft bought from a local company and pawned off to IBM) dealing with the 640k memory limitation and that is why early versions of Windows "sat a'top" the legacy operating system..no HAL bound to the GUI? Windows had no control itself over the filesystem(only by using dos execs), and filemangler, I mean winfile held strict adherence to DOS functionality? Then there was memmaker for emm386.sys and Quarterdeck (I think) that was able to overcome the 640k but it wasn't until NT w/ the new HAL that they were able to break away from 640k....and have something other than files=15, buffers=30, dos=himem, umb and emm386 to manage memory, I am no expert and do not profess to know how the widgets work with how the operating system is made.

I still partition a small part for DOS on an NT server(to boot into if necessary) and have use a DOS boot disk to start many installs of NT...so it kindasorta still all depends on DOS...wait, I'm wrong, booting off the CD-ROM overcomes that. I guess you could use all non-dos stuff for partitioning.

Also, is command.com, io.sys, msdos.sys considered DOS files, or NT files or what? These old system files are there just for DOS, or does NT now use them as well? sys c: still necessary? Sorry for rambling, I could be completely off mark too!

Something I heard that may be completely full of it: Steve jobs gave Bill Gates some jabs about still having to see the DOS bootup text when 95 debued and that a real OS didn't have such archaic aesthetics...and that's why there has been the low graphic blue screen with a wiggly bottom band since w95.

btw I had too much coffee this morning!

mrdinkel · 06-15-2003, 11:57 PM

Or you could also look at it as getting two OS's for the price of one... Considering that, if my memory from reading it serves me right, Mac OSX now includes Unix, to compensate for limitations in programming or some'n like that.

View Poll Results: The Matrix:Reloaded..Did you like it?
Yeah it was great!	3	33.33%
eh, it was ok	4	44.44%
It sucks! What the **** were they thinking!?	1	11.11%
Didnt watch it	1	11.11%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

05-20-2003, 10:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
iceman Newb Techie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5	DOS-WINDOWS combination???why?no offense The reason why I submitted this new thread is that Im just to much curious about these things. Well!, Why is it that windows is dependent on the Disk Operating System ion order to function. Is there any ways where in windows operating system can stand on its own..!!!! without utilizing a DOS under the OS itself....! Im just curious.... Can anyone answer my question...thanks a lot...

05-20-2003, 11:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Shakie Wizard Techie Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,320	Well... not all Windows versions rely on DOS. Windows 2000 and XP don't. __________________ `(\ /) This is Bunny. Add him to your signature (O.o) to help him achieve world domination. (> <)` `Shakie Smodministrator \"If I don\'t step over the line every now-and-then, how will I know where it is?\"`

05-20-2003, 11:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ecniv ¤ Broadband Specialist ¤ Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,769	I was about to say. NT and later OS's dont need DOS whatsoever, they just have a DOS emulator so thet we can utilize the commands that DOS has. __________________ \"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I\'m not sure about the former.\"- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

05-21-2003, 05:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
mrdinkel Ultra Techie Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 584	Um... you could put the bios flash on a disk with command.com, and then just start up with that. Easiest way to do it. __________________ A+ Core Hardware, Software Certified (May 13 2005) the new beast... AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton running at 2.16 Ghz. GeForce MX 4000 (mainly takes the load off the main system) Creative Labs Audigy 24-bit sound. Some Case from tigerdirect 512 MB Ultra DDR RAM. 80GB Seagate HDD LiteOn CD-RW / DVD ROM drive. currently looking at a litescribe drive at staples, due to its ability to label the CD shortly after being burned.

05-20-2003, 10:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
iceman Newb Techie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5	To all who will answer this....thanks a lot guys.>!!!!

05-21-2003, 10:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
iceman Newb Techie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5	thanks a lot guys!.

05-22-2003, 12:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
Shakie Wizard Techie Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,320	very welcome. check your PM. __________________ `(\ /) This is Bunny. Add him to your signature (O.o) to help him achieve world domination. (> <)` `Shakie Smodministrator \"If I don\'t step over the line every now-and-then, how will I know where it is?\"`

06-14-2003, 09:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
funf Newb Techie Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 18	What does he mean by "DOS" ? Can an operating system operate without a dos when it is going to reside on a disc ? Whether "DOS" is inside o under Windows it is still there ! Ofcourse MSDOS cant read NTFS filing systems, that makes me nervous and why I have used 2k & XP on FAT32 formats. Noteworth, 2k even has an enhancement to some DOS commands. for instance :- I use XCOPY for a simple and straightforward backup routine, making report to log file. In 2k I can make a DATE command with an {ENTER} to indicate that it worked that day. In 98 the routine hangs waiting for the {ENTER} keypress, untill timeout.

06-15-2003, 05:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
chalk True Techie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 227	Wasn't DOS, (which microsoft bought from a local company and pawned off to IBM) dealing with the 640k memory limitation and that is why early versions of Windows "sat a'top" the legacy operating system..no HAL bound to the GUI? Windows had no control itself over the filesystem(only by using dos execs), and filemangler, I mean winfile held strict adherence to DOS functionality? Then there was memmaker for emm386.sys and Quarterdeck (I think) that was able to overcome the 640k but it wasn't until NT w/ the new HAL that they were able to break away from 640k....and have something other than files=15, buffers=30, dos=himem, umb and emm386 to manage memory, I am no expert and do not profess to know how the widgets work with how the operating system is made. I still partition a small part for DOS on an NT server(to boot into if necessary) and have use a DOS boot disk to start many installs of NT...so it kindasorta still all depends on DOS...wait, I'm wrong, booting off the CD-ROM overcomes that. I guess you could use all non-dos stuff for partitioning. Also, is command.com, io.sys, msdos.sys considered DOS files, or NT files or what? These old system files are there just for DOS, or does NT now use them as well? sys c: still necessary? Sorry for rambling, I could be completely off mark too! Something I heard that may be completely full of it: Steve jobs gave Bill Gates some jabs about still having to see the DOS bootup text when 95 debued and that a real OS didn't have such archaic aesthetics...and that's why there has been the low graphic blue screen with a wiggly bottom band since w95. btw I had too much coffee this morning! __________________ There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. President, Digital Equipment, 1977

06-15-2003, 11:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
mrdinkel Ultra Techie Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 584	Or you could also look at it as getting two OS's for the price of one... Considering that, if my memory from reading it serves me right, Mac OSX now includes Unix, to compensate for limitations in programming or some'n like that. __________________ A+ Core Hardware, Software Certified (May 13 2005) the new beast... AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton running at 2.16 Ghz. GeForce MX 4000 (mainly takes the load off the main system) Creative Labs Audigy 24-bit sound. Some Case from tigerdirect 512 MB Ultra DDR RAM. 80GB Seagate HDD LiteOn CD-RW / DVD ROM drive. currently looking at a litescribe drive at staples, due to its ability to label the CD shortly after being burned.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode