Mail Archives: opendos/2000/01/24/18:06:17
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:33:21 +0100 (MET) Bernie
<bernie AT mbox302 DOT swipnet DOT se> writes:
> Bob Moss wrote:
> >The last I heard (and my experience with MS/PC/and especially
> DRDOS)
> >DOS will not even see WIN95 on the computer and will cause serious
> >problems,
> >the least of which is to lock-up the computer...see my comments
> below..
>
> IMO DOS shouldn't care what other programs are on the computer.
> ("modularity")
>
> > Sorry to say that there are only two 'MSDOS' files on a WIN95
> computer.
> >They are msdos.sys and io.sys and they are used to boot the
> computer and pass
> >over the control of the computer to the WIN32 Application
> Programming Interface (API).
That API exists only after
the GUI is loaded and running.
>
> IMHO those two are all that is needed for DOS (+ command.com or
> something like it of course).
Actually, only IO.SYS and a
shell like COMMAND.COM are
needed -- from DOS 7 on,
MSDOS.SYS is a text file
used by the GUI loader
started by WIN.COM. In
pre-Win9x version of DOS,
MSDOS.SYS contains the
actual DOS (Disk Operating
System) code and IO.SYS
contains the generic part of
the BIOS (Basic Input Output
System), the hardware-
specific portion is provided
by the motherboard's "ROM
BIOS" chip.
>
> In Win9x the computer boots DOS
Yes!
> (with 32bit API) and
No -- this API doesn't exist
until the GUI is running!
> executes
> win.com ot it
> boots DOS (with 16bit API - which makes it much better since no bugs
> are in
> the kernel (no need for a AMDK6-2 bugfix - and this *is* the only
> way to install the bugfix) and don't run win.com
Right, in this scenario you
are running only DOS 7 and
there is no 32-bit API yet
-- you get that only when
you run MS-DOS Prompt or a
DOS app from the GUI, e.g.
the Start Menu "Run" box.
One can confirm the absence
of the 32-bit API by the
fact that no long filenames
are visible unless the GUI
is running!
>
> >This MSDOS 7 is a DOS Emulator sysytem built up of 32bit API
> versions
> >of the old DOS files. These files can be found in \Windows\Command
> and are
> not
> >DOS.
>
Wrong. These are DOS 7 files
and can't run without a
running GUI if you can do
without long filename support.
> Neither is the old xcopy.exe file... These are system utilities.
> MS-DOS 7.x is a valid DOS.
Correct, although there is an
XCOPY enhancement called
XCOPY32.EXE that comes into
play when the GUI's 32-bit
API is available.
>
> >You can download the old DOS files from the MS download site but
> they
> >don't work well in a DOS window because they are not written to
> comply with
> >32bit API.
This is nonsense. Virtually
any DOS executable will run
under raw, pre-GUI DOS 7 as
long as you make use of the
SETVER.EXE device driver.
>
> Really? I had no idea that it was free, perhaps you can point it out
> to us?
>
> >Thats why DRDOS has problems, and will continue to do so, until it
> is
> >written to be compatible with the 32bit API's and FAT32 and has
> long file
> name
> >recognition in Command.Com the way 4DOS does. They have a version
> made for
> WIN95 but
> >I have not tried it yet..
>
> I really don't see what 32bit APIs, FAT32 and VFAT has to do with
> this...
> We are on another level here entirely. LFN aren't needed, just as
> 32bit APIs. FAT32 is just a new FAT version...
You are essentially correct.
Under raw, pre-GUI DOS 7,
the 32-bit API issue is moot
since that doesn't exist
unless the GUI is loaded and
running. As previously noted,
long filenames are not
visible in this scenario --
the long filename support in
COMMAND.COM and the newer
versions of 4DOS is idle in
the absence of the 32-bit API.
>
> >I have only seen that on some HP or Compaq systems where they run a
> >propritary version of a pc-compatible. I tried it with mine and Had
> all
> sorts of
> >trouble. MS designed the FAT32 so that one large hard disk could
> store
> everything
> >without loosing large amounts of hard disk space like we do with
> DOS and
> >WIN31/311 systems and large drive/large partitions. On a FAT32
> system
> clusters are
> >only 8k up to 8GB versus 64k on a 2048-4096MB FAT16 system, and
> most of the
> >post 1995 BIOS let you use up to 5GB hard drives and all the
> extraspace is
> >available for use with the large files used in windows environment
> .
>
> FAT16 has a limit at 2GB. Actually I've never understood what the
> problem
> with the cluster size is, by keeping things on seperate drives you
> will
> have it much better sorted. (For instance games only on g, h and i
> and
> applications on the others).
> FWIW I've got 8.4GB (divided into ca 500MB partitions) for DOS (only
> OS,
> and only Windows version is 3.11 fwg) on this computer (AMD K6-2 400
> with 64MB RAM).
That is an intelligent
solution that I retained
when I added Win95 to
Win3.11 to my system via
System Commander. If I
had gone the FAT32 route
I would have lost backward
compatibility for data
access via Win3.11 and
DOS 6.20.
>
> > Now, almost
> >all the Windows applications are setup to go on drive c: , although
> they
> do let
> >you choose expert install and put the program anywhere you choose
> and even
> >use a different folder name (this can really confuse the issue,
> especially if
> >you take your computer to a shop to be worked on).
That's only because today's
generation of so-called PC
technicians tend to be
incompetent (largely because
they're so underpaid) kids
who get confused by anything
beyond a typical factory
Windoze setup. Phooey, I do
my own hardware work anyway!
>
> How can it confuse anything?
To an incompetent, pretty
nearly anything is confusing!
>
> >Half of the stuff would not un-install properly and I had to hand
> massage
> the >registry.
>
> Nothing new with that, it's a well known fact that the only way to
> uninstall program x is to delete everything on the partition and
> reinstall everything except program x.
...either that or put up with
miscellaneous detritus files
that the uninstaller couldn't
locate and/or delete. It's a
good thing hard disk space has
gotten so cheap!
>
> >I have just finished spending two weeks getting enough of the
> garbage out
> of the >Registry so I can begin re-installing everthing without
> getting
> calls for the loading >of files that are not on the computer
> anymore, or
> not on drive c: because I put the >programs on another drive. At
> least I
> have Partition Magic to change the size of my >drives so I can have
> one large C: drive.
>
> You should have installed the programs on D: E: or whatever you
> want, you can't expect it to work after you move them.
Exactly right!
>
> >all I see here is the same thing they had in Win31/311. The
> computer is
> >directed to
> >the Windows directory and told to boot in multiuser and GUI mode.
>
> I've never seen Win 3.x do something like that.
That right, in Win3.x you have
to explicitly set that up in
AUTOEXEC.BAT if that's the
behavior you want, otherwise
you will boot up to a simple
DOS prompt.
>
> >WIN98 is completely DOS free and BILL GATES brags about that all
> >the time.
Nonsense, Win98 is just
warmed-over and tweaked-up
Win95 as described below:
>
> Excuse me?!
> Windows 98 is a package of the following:
>
> * MS-DOS 7.x
> * Windows 4.x
> * Internet Explorer x.x (I have no idea, all I know is that it's
> really
> really slowing down the computer since it's always running).
Yes, Win98 is an awful
resource hog -- the overhead
negates the advantages of
the minor bug fixes. Even
the very latest IE runs (as
well as an M$ browser ever
run) under Win95.
>
> Only diffrence with Windows 95 is that there are a few bug fixes,
> new
> useless features (a few are good but most are useless) and more
> bugs. (And not all Win95 games can be used in Win98).
I have no trouble at all
believing that!
>
> Windows NT 5 (aka Windows 2000) is a diffrent matter entirely, but
> who
> whould want to use an OS that uses 128MB just to start a simple text
> editor (notepad).
Well put.
>
> >DOS programs must be handled very carefully to run on these systems
> as
> >the DOS programmers normally setup the programs to take over the
> entire
> >computer and when they do they over-write windows code and crash
> the system.
More presumptive baloney.
My elder son is sort of a
old-DOS-game collector and
finds that the vast bulk
of them work just fine
with the Win95 GUI loaded
and running. Win95 has
rather elaborate facilities
to accomodate DOS programs
that attempt direct hardware
access -- there are times
that it fails fatally, but
for those programs one can
resort to raw pre-GUI DOS 7.
>
> Sorry, I have no idea how that works, just set up Windows 9x to show
> a
> bootup menu and choose "Normal MS-DOS" for these programs. (Ok, I
> don't
> actually have Windows 9x but that's how people have set it up so it
> will work).
This is correct.
>
> >WIN95/98 attempts to load DOS programs in a virtual computer mode
> where
> >they are not aware of windows and operate in their own space, but
> that
> >frequently not enough and most WIN95/98 users do not attempt to use
> DOS
> (dinosaur)
> >stuff because they are tired of rebuilding the computer and also
> there
> >are lots of wimpy windows applications/games which use the
> installed
> windows librarys
> >to run without crashing.
This is so poorly written
I'm not even going to attempt
to parse out what it really
is trying to say.
>
> Most Win9x users thinks that computers didn't exist until Windows95
> came (except at big offices). Very few are aware of any alternative.
> Besides if
> they were "tired of rebuilding the computer" then they wouldn't be
> running
> Windows 9x anyway. Most people don't try to fix the problems they
> have in Windows 9x since it's way to complicated.
Yup.
>
> >Maybe you can see I don't really like Windoze. But I have to use it
> at
> >work and all my children and grandchildren need it for school work,
> so I have
> >it.
>
> I understand that you disslike Windows (so do I) but the reasons you
> wrote aren't valid.
I agree, he's very misinformed
about what's actually going on
-- "a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing!"
> I dislike it since it's:
>
> * (more or less) impossible to install hardware into it
Sorry, here we disagree. If
you do things in the correct
order, Win95's hardware
detection is really quite
reliable given the correct
driver(s). It should be
reliable, the hardware
detection code is provided by
the hardware manufacturers
themselves, who (here's where
the monopoly aspect comes in)
pay M$ for the privilege of
being included in the Win95
hardware lists!
> * slows down your computer so much
Again we disagree, on my
pre-Pentium hardware Win95 is
no slower overall than Win3.11.
It does take up more RAM, but I
have a fairly fast SCSI disk
subsystem and disk swapping is
quite fast -- and much less
crash-prone that is is under
Win3.11.
> * hangs without any reason
No more often than Win3.11, and
it recovers more coherently
most of the time.
> * way to big (or "demanding on the hardware")
Win95 works OK in 16, 24, or
32 MB. I can't say the same
for Win98 or NT.
> * (more or less) requiering a mouse to operate - and a new mice
> doesn't
> even work for many weeks with little use, I would hate to be using
> it all the time
I've had the same big "Keen"
mouse since '91 -- I've had
to clean it and re-align the
optics a few times, but it's
still working fine as we
speak.
>
> There are probably more reasons which I have forgotten (or that
> other people see as reasons).
Unfortunately, without Win95
I'd be cut off from too many
improved and/or fixed program
revisions. Sound card and
video support is also far more
up-to-date, and the 32-bit
Winsock apps are generally
quite a bit more powerful and
stable than their DOS and
16-bit Windoze counterparts.
__________________________________________________
http://come.to/realization
http://www.atman.net/realization
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
- Raw text -