f



Who still uses DOS and for what?

DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys use
DOS for?

John

 
0
John
6/13/2005 5:47:38 PM
comp.os.msdos.misc 1126 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

54 Replies
858 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 42

"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message 
news:_Ejre.10953$rt3.3302@fe03.lga...
> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys 
> use
> DOS for?
>
> John
>

Anything where serious work needs to be done. Playing with graphics is all 
very fine, but it takes an incredible amount of processing power to follow 
the clicky-flashy path. No finesse, and ever-larger programs to perform the 
most trivial functions.

People have become seduced into believing that you have to connect to the 
net and use a mouse to do anything. Fact is that you don't - but there are 
some very large companies happily making obscene amounts of money letting 
the ignorant masses believe their "new way" is essential.

Doing things using DOS is often faster, smaller - and more fun. Usually less 
flashy, though - and no-one's going to be making millions out of it.... 


0
billious
6/13/2005 6:08:02 PM
In article <_Ejre.10953$rt3.3302@fe03.lga>,
John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote:
>DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do
>you guys use DOS for?
>
>John
>

Hi John,

I've been up the MS-Win path and retro'd back down again as 'patches'
got larger and larger and more frequent.  Seemed to spend more and more
time just trying to get and keep it running as I'd like.  So presently I
now use DOS for more or less everything, word processing, spreadsheet,
web surfing, Email, news etc.  Stable environment once you've got it setup
and thereafter no further upgrades/patching required.

My setup's pretty basic with a 300Mhz 32MB RAM and 250MB USB flashstick
(I now have no hard disk at all).

FLY desktop GUI (inc calendar), Arachne Web Browser, Yarn Email/News,
NeoPaint and PictView for image manipulation, Dos Navigator (File Manager),
QP spreadsheet and Word are my core set.

Check out http://www.cml55uk.12freeukisp.co.uk/ if your interested.

Regards.  CJ.
 


0
cml55uk
6/13/2005 11:04:38 PM
In article <42adcb40$1_4@alt.athenanews.com>,
"billious" <billious_1954@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message 
>news:_Ejre.10953$rt3.3302@fe03.lga...
>> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys 
>> use
>> DOS for?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Anything where serious work needs to be done. Playing with graphics is all 
>very fine, but it takes an incredible amount of processing power to follow 
>the clicky-flashy path. No finesse, and ever-larger programs to perform the 
>most trivial functions.
>
>People have become seduced into believing that you have to connect to the 
>net and use a mouse to do anything. Fact is that you don't - but there are 
>some very large companies happily making obscene amounts of money letting 
>the ignorant masses believe their "new way" is essential.
>
>Doing things using DOS is often faster, smaller - and more fun. Usually less 
>flashy, though - and no-one's going to be making millions out of it.... 
>

A few years back I gave up the office job and have sinced traded the
Stock Market for my sole income, so I'd agree with billious' view of
using DOS for 'serious work' as that's all I ever use now.

Yes DOS is faster and more pleasurable IMHO.  I can write code (preferring
TP7) to do data analysis etc very easily, and the system boots in seconds!

FLY GUI provides my clicky-flashy and mouse type interface and Arachne is
a graphical based browser, yet the two will fit on a bootable floppy if
the need arose, so I'd disagree with GUI's always being processor intensive,
and I'm well on the way to disproving that you can't make millions out of
using DOS too!  ;>

Software and hardware manufacturers however want you to replace your
systems every few years and the two work together in providing more 
processing power and software bloat to use that extra power whereas
in practice there are very few who really need such processing power.

From my experience of offices, a word processor, spreadsheet, EMail
and a calendar, together with a browser for those periods where you've
got little else to do, are all that is required in order to function.
Most of these had sufficient power to do a reasonable job back in the
days when DOS was maturing.  If you measured the capital benefit
achieved compared to the capital cost of upgrading systems ever since
those days I'm sure there'd be a large bias towards the latter.

Its a case of the latest systems being a bit of a Swiss knife - a saw,
scissors, screwdriver etc.  Whereas in practice most builders have
their own trusty hammer and saw that has served them well for years.

CJ



0
cml55uk
6/13/2005 11:32:28 PM


On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, John wrote:

> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:47:38 GMT
> From: John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys use
> DOS for?
>
> John
>
>
>

I've played with DOS, then went to Windows95 (which, while some people 
said they've had little or no problem with, gave me tons of problems; only 
by Win98SE did MS get the OS pretty stablized), tried Linux (mostly Red 
Hat 4.2 through their Workstation (Taroon, ver 3.0), played with OS/2 
(warp 3 and 4 [a disaster b/c it wouldn't install on most of my boxes], 
but warp 3 installed on most that I tried).

Now, I use Win98SE almost only for Website access  with Mozilla or 
Firefox or Opera (stay away from IE), but use Win3.1 (sits on DOS) and DOS 
for practically everything else. Old Netscape Personal Edition 2.01 has a 
ppp dialer that is very robust and with MS-DOS as the OS (other DOSes 
don't work), you can run ws_FTP for Win 3.1 and terminal programs like 
Netterm for Win 3.1 or Teraterm for Win 3.1 and you'll actually be much 
more secure from hackers (last year I got a free desktop security audit 
from www.securityspace.com and they could not hack my win3.1 box with the 
netscape dialer and either netscape 4.07 or opera 3.62 for Win 3.1 but 
they could hack my Linux box (Red Hat 6.2) and my Win98SE box.

Yes, DOS/Win3.1, as far as I'm concerned, is the superior SW unless you 
want the latest junk (that needs high spec hardware). Win3.1 filemanager 
is best I've seen. Almost as good is the one for Linux.

I get most of my boxes now from thrift stores, church rummage sales, 
hamfests, yard sales. pay $5 to $50 for a box, typically 200-300 mHz, 32 
mb RAM, and 1 gig HD. I even bought an XP box with 128 mb ram & 6 gig HD 
for $75 and it runs fine. But, I prefer the older slower boxes.

Sometimes the old software is better (and faster, simpler, smaller, 
safer); I have Wordperfect for DOS ver 5.1 and when you go into reveal 
codes, you can manipulate ALL of the codes. In Wordperfect 6.0 for Win 
3.1, it won't let you move the cursor over the code that you want to 
manipulate or delete. Lots of the new software won't let you access your 
files, and MS has pulled off a lot of dirty tricks on people who don't pay 
attention to what their sw is doing.

All you need is a chkdsk, defragger, and a wipeinfo (eg. Norton's 
wipeinfo) if you want to zero out free space for security (formating is 
not enough). An unerase is useful, too.

I use DOS terminal programs to access shell accounts on UNIX ISPs where 
you're isolated from all of the Windows-specific spyware, viruses, hacks, 
trojans, and other maleware flying around out there. They can't hack your 
DOS box running DOS and a DOS terminal program. I'm using Procomm Plus 
right now. Telix is also good.

Since a lot, but not all, Win3.1 programs run under Win98SE, sometimes I 
boot up (with a boot manager) into Win98SE to get web browser but also 
access to all of my Win3.1 programs that run faster under Win98SE than 
Win98 aps run under Win98SE.

If you dig around, you can find some commercial operations using FreeDOS, 
which is available free from their website.

NewDeal Office, a DOS graphical-based, menu-controled, and mouse driven 
office suite is actually quite nice and while not as fancy as MS-office, 
you can do a lot with it (wp, spreadsheet, rudimentary db, editors, 
viewers, games, net access, calculator, file card, wysiwyg screen, 
moveable/resizable windows, cut and paste, the whole nine yards, etc), 
but they went out of business as Frankesoft (i.e. Microsoft) monopolized
software. But, they proved you could do nice things without MS-Windows

Art S.
(long live DOS)




0
straydog
6/14/2005 4:04:36 AM
>Now, I use Win98SE almost only for Website access  with Mozilla or 
>Firefox or Opera (stay away from IE), but use Win3.1 (sits on DOS)

Win95, 98 and 98SE can all be set up to boot DOS then load the windowing
stuff after.  If you disable the power-off control cr*p, you can even 
exit back to DOS from WinXX just like in Win3.1.  Obviously MS does not
make this easy (let alone default), but it is doable.  Some people claim
you can even make that ME abhomination work that way, but I have no personal
experience with that.
0
Kevin
6/14/2005 11:56:26 AM


On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:

> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:56:26 +0000
> From: Kevin G. Rhoads <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
>> Now, I use Win98SE almost only for Website access  with Mozilla or
>> Firefox or Opera (stay away from IE), but use Win3.1 (sits on DOS)
>
> Win95, 98 and 98SE can all be set up to boot DOS

The "DOS" that Win9x provides is not "Real DOS" and there are DOS 
applications out there that will not work on Win9x-DOS. I have one DOS 
application developed after Win9xs came out and the instructions say
that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full screen, or tricks) derived from
Win9x will not work; a Real DOS, eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc (there are many) 
has to be booted.

  then load the windowing
> stuff after.  If you disable the power-off control cr*p, you can even
> exit back to DOS from WinXX just like in Win3.1.  Obviously MS does not
> make this easy (let alone default), but it is doable.  Some people claim
> you can even make that ME abhomination work that way, but I have no personal
> experience with that.

I am not that much of a persistent "DOS hacker" and if I can't get a 
program to work one way or the other, I just go and do something else. 
I've found a lot of DOS programs, for example, that work under a standard 
OS/2 installation (without tweaking the OS/2 autoexec.bat and config.sys 
files, which are much more complex than for DOS) and I've found a lot that 
just don't work or crash.

I much prefer to use System Commander to multi-boot whatever I want. 
At work, I almost always use Win3.1 & its aps. If I need a recent web 
browser, I reboot the work box into Win98SE (both on a FAT-16 partition, 
then can use free F-prot AV on that partition). At home, I have both 
bootable, but installed the same Win3.1 aps under Win98SE and they work 
fine. (There are some Win3.1 aps that don't work under Win98SE, so, heck, 
I just don't use them). I'm happy. Haven't bought much new software in 
years (some Linuxes, that's all), and everything works and I'm satisfied.








0
straydog
6/14/2005 10:34:18 PM
I use dos for everything.  There has been no substantual advantage in 
basic power user usage since dos applications in wp, db, and ss 
aplications where the real work gets done.  I use a shell account with an 
isp and linux apps on his machine for web work.  I have a setup to switch 
to linix if and when dos can no longer get into the web and when harware 
no longer supports dos.  It is very stable, has tons of software and is a 
mature os.  When dos machines are no longer available then dosemu in linux 
will allow using the power productivity applications.
0
outsor
6/14/2005 11:58:19 PM
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
> > Win95, 98 and 98SE can all be set up to boot DOS


"straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> The "DOS" that Win9x provides is not "Real DOS" and there are
> DOS applications out there that will not work on Win9x-DOS.
> I have one DOS application developed after Win9xs came out
> and the instructions say that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full
> screen, or tricks) derived from Win9x will not work; a Real DOS,
> eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc (there are many) has to be booted.

It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If you're
only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt from within
Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS emulator.  But MS-DOS
7.1 (the version underlying Win98) is as real as MS-DOS 6.22.  That's the
version you get on a Win98 boot floppy (aka, "Startup Disk"), and when you
boot the floppy it's real DOS.  Hit [F8] when Windows starts to boot and
choose "Command Prompt", and you get real DOS.



0
dg1261
6/15/2005 7:30:59 PM
I have a very old laptop with DOS 6.2 only installed that I use
strictly for old DOS games. It's my toy. In case any of you still like
those old games, a gold mine of downloads is
http://www.the-underdogs.org. Love that site! I have a copy of Windows
3.1 that I may install on it, but for now, just DOS. I had a heck of a
time copying the 5.25 disks onto 3.5 floppies to get it loaded into the
laptop. I'm still not sure I got it done correctly because I am having
problems with the mscdex. The CD rom drive wants to keep opening. But,
I have installed and run Doom, Thexder, a lot of the Police Quest
games...fun stuff.

0
rx7chick
6/16/2005 1:25:04 PM
rx7chick wrote:
> I have a very old laptop with DOS 6.2 only installed that I use
> strictly for old DOS games. It's my toy. In case any of you still like
> those old games, a gold mine of downloads is
> http://www.the-underdogs.org. Love that site! I have a copy of Windows
> 3.1 that I may install on it, but for now, just DOS. I had a heck of a
> time copying the 5.25 disks onto 3.5 floppies to get it loaded into
> the laptop. I'm still not sure I got it done correctly because I am
> having problems with the mscdex. The CD rom drive wants to keep
> opening. But, I have installed and run Doom, Thexder, a lot of the
> Police Quest games...fun stuff.

vide-cdd.sys
and shsucdx are to be commended

here's my loadcd.bat

ctload d:\uti\vide-cdd.sys /d:MSCD0001
lh shsucdx /d:MSCD0001 Z >nul

(ctload is a commandline device driver loader)

so I can fire up the CD if I need it, but otherwise saves precious RAM!


0
Mike
6/16/2005 1:39:43 PM
Hello,
I'm using DOS most of the time, when not UNIX. I am a low-vision
person,
and the command-line operations are the best way I have ever seen to
work with
a computer. I'm a computer scientist and I don't absolutely need large
print
programs to work in DOS, because display is white on black background,
which
does not give me eyestrain as much as those "whity sheet-of-paper
emulations
under windows" that glow in my face. A sheet of paper is printed black
on
white, but a computer is not a sheet of paper, so it's white on black.
That
saves both your eyes (especially mine which are fragile) and your
monitor.
Since it's 80x25 display, no large print is really necessary.

I mostly use DOS for entertainment at home with those old Digger,
Q-bert
games, etc... that are also colour on black background. Very pleasent
and
loads in seconds. I have a KVM switch, and I start my good-old XT clone
under DOS 3.3 that boots in 10 seconds! I have time to play Tetris on
it just
while my Pentium III 933 Mhz is loading Windows XP and the hard drive
is
gurgling and clicking. Both were turned on at the same time. So a P933
under
DOS boots in a lightning!

At work I use UNIX I'm very familiar with administering. We're under
Solaris,
and I'm glad. I have a machine w/o graphics interface to work close to
the
OS and have my white print on black background. We're 4 administrators,
and
I'm the expert in DOS! I know all commands of virtually all versions.
That's
the way to go before learning UNIX. But I feel we're inevitably being
aspired
towards Windows architecture, one of my co-workers told me even UNIX is

on the way out.

Well, I brought them one of my old MFM hard drives and controller,
plugged it
in a PC, and asked them "How do you low-level format it?". They didn't
know
what I was talking about. I showed them
the DEBUG command and the famous g=c800:5 instruction to invoke the
controller's
interface, just the same way I would teach beginners! They said they've
never
used DEBUG in their life!

I my museum, I also use commands. There's CP/M-86, the predecessor of
DOS
and competitor to early DOS versions. Also have UCSD p-System. All
funny
to tinker around from time to time.

So yes, for me DOS is still the main course when working with PCs and
clones,
and I'm sad many computer scientists don't know their commands well.

Example. To find file XYZ.DAT on the C: drive with millions of files.
Go to
DOS, type C:, then CD \, then DIR /s XYZ.DAT. That's much faster than
trying
to find how to do it in Windows, if it's possible.

I'm young, and I've got my first PC at 16 in late 1980s, running DOS
3.2. I was
so amazed by DOS that I oriented my career towards computer science.
And today
DOS is still the quick-and-easy OS even after all what I have learned
since.

That was the best era for low-vision, and even more for blind people,
because
they didn't have to run after a mouse cursor. You just have to know
your
commands by heart, and sequentially type in your work. You don't even
have to
see what you're doing. Once at work someone changed the resolution of
the
screen to an invalid value. Everyone wanted to turn off the server and
plug in another monitor. I said: "Wait a minute, the screen is blank
but we
don't need to see what we type if we know the command by heart." I
typed the
command to switch back to a valid resolution, and the image came back!

Luc
John wrote:
> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys use
> DOS for?
> 
> John

0
rhubarbe0
6/16/2005 9:33:57 PM
John wrote:
> DOS interests me.  

***   it is an interesting system.


> Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  

***   You have my sympathies.  (-:  I dropped Win 98 in 1999 and upgraded
everything to DOS.


> What do you guys use DOS for?

> John

***   Everything! I run my business with it, maintain my four websites
including the graphics, surf The Internet including e-mail & newsgroups,
view images (static & moving), do photo & other image manipulation, listen
to music, etc.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
6/16/2005 10:13:44 PM
straydog wrote:

> The "DOS" that Win9x provides is not "Real DOS" 

***   I can't quite agree. Win 9.x provides two DOSes. One is a
stand-alone (or nearly so - a slight Windows stub is still loaded), the
other is what one sees when one opens a DOS window. The window DOS is
still real DOS, but it has been modified to run with Windows.


> and there are DOS 
> applications out there that will not work on Win9x-DOS. 

***   Supposedly, but in my experience, tweaking the DOS properties seemed
to allow all but the oldest DOS programs to run. However, I am open to
contrary examples with this last point.


> I have one DOS application developed after Win9xs came out and the
> instructions say that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full screen, or tricks)
> derived from Win9x will not work; a Real DOS, eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc
> (there are many) has to be booted then load the windowing
> stuff after.  

***   So, this program will run when Win 9.x is booted into DOS
from scratch? What happens when Windows is set to allow that program full
control? 


> I'm happy. Haven't bought much new software in 
> years (some Linuxes, that's all), and everything works and I'm satisfied.

***   Then you are missing out on what the latest DOS versions and
software have to offer. Try some of them - you may be even happier.  (-:

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
6/17/2005 12:59:57 AM
outsor@city-net.com wrote:
> I use dos for everything.  There has been no substantual advantage in 
> basic power user usage since dos applications in wp, db, and ss 
> aplications where the real work gets done.  

***   Yup. Those softwares have lots of bells & whistles, but the old
programs already can do most of what most people do now.


> I use a shell account with an 
> isp and linux apps on his machine for web work.  I have a setup to switch 
> to linix if and when dos can no longer get into the web and when harware 
> no longer supports dos.  It is very stable, has tons of software and is a 
> mature os.  When dos machines are no longer available then dosemu in linux 
> will allow using the power productivity applications.

***   I tend to think that as hardware changes, drivers and interfaces
will be written for DOS. It has happened already with USB. 

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

0
ak621
6/17/2005 1:03:26 AM
rx7chick wrote:
> I am having problems with the mscdex. The CD rom drive wants to keep
> opening. 

***   I suggest a modern upgrade: SHSUCDX. It's an excellent CR-ROM
controller.

   A link may be found in my "Websites" Directory at:

	http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/Websites.html

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
6/17/2005 1:08:56 AM
rhubarbe0@yahoo.com wrote:

> I mostly use DOS for entertainment at home with those old Digger, 
> Q-bert games, etc... that are also colour on black background. Very
> pleasent  and loads in seconds. I have a KVM switch, and I start my
> good-old XT clone under DOS 3.3 that boots in 10 seconds! I have time to
> play Tetris on it just while my Pentium III 933 Mhz is loading Windows
> XP and the hard drive is gurgling and clicking. Both were turned on
> at the same time. So a P933 under DOS boots in a lightning! 

***   That's *teflon* lightning!  (-:


> At work I use UNIX I'm very familiar with administering. We're under 
> Solaris, and I'm glad. I have a machine w/o graphics interface to work
> close to the OS and have my white print on black background. We're 4
> administrators, and I'm the expert in DOS! I know all commands of
> virtually all versions. That's the way to go before learning UNIX.
> But I feel we're inevitably being aspired towards Windows
> architecture, one of my co-workers told me even UNIX is on the way
> out. 

***   Given the number of Unix servers and the popularity of Linux, I
don't see that. A lot of the Windows momentum was generated when Microsoft
drove out other systems not because it was a better system. I find their
monopoly has lessened competition and is disheartening. MS needs to be
broken up like ATT.


> So yes, for me DOS is still the main course when working with PCs and
> clones, and I'm sad many computer scientists don't know their commands
> well.

***   They should because many of them are useful under Windows.


> Example. To find file XYZ.DAT on the C: drive with millions of files.
> Go to DOS, type C:, then CD \, then DIR /s XYZ.DAT. That's much faster
> than trying to find how to do it in Windows, if it's possible.

***   It is, but here's an even faster way:

   From anywhere in DOS type:

DIR C:\XYZ.DAT /S

   This is one of the things I like best about command-line systems: They
are remote control. One may do anything from anywhere in DOS to anywhere
else in DOS without moving.


> I'm young, and I've got my first PC at 16 in late 1980s, running DOS 
> 3.2. I was so amazed by DOS that I oriented my career towards computer
> science.  And today DOS is still the quick-and-easy OS even after all
> what I have learned since.

***   I had the same experience. I have used other systems, but none
compare to the speed and directness of DOS.


> That was the best era for low-vision, and even more for blind people,
> because they didn't have to run after a mouse cursor. You just have to
> know your commands by heart, and sequentially type in your work. You
> don't even have to see what you're doing. 
>
> Luc

***   Yup, and one doesn't have to wait for menus to appear or tasks to
complete; simply fill the keyboard buffer with commands and wait til the
computer catches up.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
6/17/2005 1:29:31 AM
Richard Bonner <ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
d8t91r$e3v$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> rhubarbe0@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> ***   It is, but here's an even faster way:
>
>    From anywhere in DOS type:
>
> DIR C:\XYZ.DAT /S

DIR C:\XYZ.DAT /S /B

.... gives you the filename & path on a single line.   Removes the need to
traverse back to stich the directory-names together to create the path :)



0
R
6/18/2005 12:51:25 PM
At home I use OS/2 with its DOS capabilities for all my personal stuff 
including:

1) A twenty-program stocks monitoring system written n dBASE 5 for DOS.
2) I've converted all my old phonograph records to 192 CDs via SONY 
sound equipment. There are 160 hours and 1,617 selections in this 
library. I've  used dBASE 5.0 for DOS to write a music program that:
   1. Gives me the statistics I just quoted you.
   2. Searches the database for selected authors, words, or category. 
(I'm mostly a traditional classical music fan.)
   3. Allows me to select music based on when I last played a particular 
item. (No, I don't play them on the computer - I have a small hi-fi 
setup within arms reach instead.)

I'm retired, but I volunteer at the local American Legion post where 
I've installed OS/2 with WINDOWS 3.1.

About 30 programs do the following: (all of them are  in dBASE 5 for 
DOS, except item 5)

    1. Record data and print envelopes for a State-of-Michigan-licensed 
raffle that helps raise a couple grand a month for the post.

    2. Enter into the computer the accounts and amounts for petty cash. 
This data is consolidated into a printout of a journal entry for manual 
input to QUICKEN in WINDOWS. We use Quicken to print checks and a profit 
statement. But that's all.

    3. A program reads and parses the Quicken profit statement, (which 
is printed to a file), and transfers it to a DOS program that prints a 
re-arranged statement more meaningful to the membership.

    4. An adder that performs adding-machine functions but also prints a 
correctable tape.

    5. Quattro-pro is used to perform some spreadsheet work.

    6. A follow-up system that runs everything including accounting and 
maintenance cycles.

    7. A payroll system.

    8. An inventory system for ordering liquor.

At home I also have an XP machine that I use once a year for my tax 
return. But I'm thinking of going back to hand. I've used the XP as a 
test base for transferring the stocks system to my nephew's XP also but, 
frankly, I hate WINDOWS-based DOS.


John wrote:
> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys use
> DOS for?
> 
> John
> 
>  


0
Tom
6/19/2005 5:06:06 PM
I do about everthing with DOS including Internet access via a 
UNIX shell account.

See my how-to-do story about it at: www.nyx.net/~wboas/8088.html

Bill
wboas@nyx.net
www.nyx.net/~wboas

0
wboas
6/19/2005 5:39:00 PM

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, dg1261 wrote:

> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:30:59 GMT
> From: dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>>> Win95, 98 and 98SE can all be set up to boot DOS
>
>
> "straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>> The "DOS" that Win9x provides is not "Real DOS" and there are
>> DOS applications out there that will not work on Win9x-DOS.
>> I have one DOS application developed after Win9xs came out
>> and the instructions say that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full
>> screen, or tricks) derived from Win9x will not work; a Real DOS,
>> eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc (there are many) has to be booted.
>
> It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If you're
> only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt from within
> Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS emulator.

Why do you call it an "emulator"?

   But MS-DOS
> 7.1 (the version underlying Win98) is as real as MS-DOS 6.22.

Why do you say this? Please give me a technical explanation. I'd like to 
know.

   That's the
> version you get on a Win98 boot floppy (aka, "Startup Disk"), and when you
> boot the floppy it's real DOS.  Hit [F8] when Windows starts to boot and
> choose "Command Prompt", and you get real DOS.

My friend, there are people here who know much more than I do. As I said, 
I have a piece of commercial software and they say Win9x (the window, the 
full screen, etc. will not work). I have not tried to show that they are 
wrong. I have not tried a startup disk to see if that will run DOS 
programs that "real DOS" will run. I also know that some DOS programs will 
not run in W9x windows or full screen.

I recall other posters who have talked about W9X also as not "real DOS".


















0
straydog
6/20/2005 6:14:41 PM

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Richard Bonner wrote:

> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Richard Bonner <ak621@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
> straydog wrote:
>
>> The "DOS" that Win9x provides is not "Real DOS"
>
> ***   I can't quite agree. Win 9.x provides two DOSes. One is a
> stand-alone (or nearly so - a slight Windows stub is still loaded), the
> other is what one sees when one opens a DOS window. The window DOS is
> still real DOS, but it has been modified to run with Windows.
>
>
>> and there are DOS
>> applications out there that will not work on Win9x-DOS.
>
> ***   Supposedly, but in my experience, tweaking the DOS properties seemed
> to allow all but the oldest DOS programs to run. However, I am open to
> contrary examples with this last point.
>
>
>> I have one DOS application developed after Win9xs came out and the
>> instructions say that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full screen, or tricks)
>> derived from Win9x will not work; a Real DOS, eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc
>> (there are many) has to be booted then load the windowing
>> stuff after.
>
> ***   So, this program will run when Win 9.x is booted into DOS
> from scratch? What happens when Windows is set to allow that program full
> control?

Are you talking about a pif file? Or using setver?

>
>> I'm happy. Haven't bought much new software in
>> years (some Linuxes, that's all), and everything works and I'm satisfied.
>
> ***   Then you are missing out on what the latest DOS versions and
> software have to offer. Try some of them - you may be even happier.  (-:

Hi Richard, we've talked before with me under a different alias and email 
address. Unfortunately I don't have the time any more to play with any new 
DOS software. I found a bunch of old CDROMs of DOS shareware and found a 
few games I like a lot.

I'm plenty happy with my collection of DOS (wordperfect, xtree, procomm 
plus), all I need in Win3.1 aps (WP, excel, corel draws, etc). I use 
W98se, and even those win3.1 aps that run fine under w98, mainly because I 
need Mozilla & Opera for web browsing those sites that crash my Win3.1 
browsers. Yeah, I do business on line, too. Two business websites I do 
business with won't work on any browsers older than 1-2 years, but they do 
work with Lynx and Links.

I also like to find perfectly fine PCs in church rummage sales and thrift 
shops for $5 to $50 each. Even picked up an XP box for $50 (including 
monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and all I use it for is burning CDROM 
disks. In the office (my other business) I still print out insurance 
claim forms with DOS and an HP 4L laserjet.

For all the versions of Wordperfect I have, 5.1 for DOS is the best. 
Farther up you go, actually the farther away from ability to manipulate a 
file you get. Go into reveal codes and you can't touch the 'tab' character 
in either 6.0 for windows 9x or 5.2 for win3.1.

Art S.
--------
DOS: smaller, safer (the sun might stop shining before you get another DOS 
virus, anyone write any in the last 10 years?), faster, simpler, 
easier!

>         Richard Bonner
> http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
>














0
straydog
6/20/2005 6:30:26 PM
"straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If
> > you're only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt
> > from within Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS
> > emulator.
>
> Why do you call it an "emulator"?
>
> > But MS-DOS 7.1 (the version underlying Win98) is as real as
> > MS-DOS 6.22.
>
> Why do you say this? Please give me a technical explanation. I'd like
> to know.

At the risk of oversimplifying:  the computer starts with DOS, Win9x runs on
top of DOS, and a "DOS window" runs on top of Win9x.  A "DOS window" does
not open a tunnel to the real DOS underneath, it's a command environment
that runs on top of Win9x and tries to pretend, as much as possible, to look
and act like the real DOS underneath.

In a real DOS environment, programs have direct access to hardware.  A
programmer can write code that directly accesses the bios, parallel and
serial ports, video display registers and buffers, specific memory addresses
in ram, the hard disk controller, etc.  Being a single-tasking operating
system, DOS programs also can expect to be the only thing running.

In contrast, Windows is a multi-tasking operating system.  It cordons off
areas of ram for each running program and essentially time-shares out the
CPU to those programs.  It cannot let any program--including a DOS
window--have exclusive access to CPU time or let a program have direct
access to the hardware because that could have dire consequences to other
programs running, so Windows blocks (most) attempts to directly access the
hardware.  Windows reserves those privileges for itself because it has to be
the ultimate traffic cop in order for multi-tasking to work.  Usually, DOS
programs that don't work from Windows are those that insist on direct access
to the hardware.

This is a simplified explanation, and others may jump in here with
additional details or clarifications, but that should give you the gist of
the issue.

When you boot from a Win98 boot floppy or hit [F8] and boot to a command
prompt, you're only doing the first part--starting the underlying DOS.
You're not starting up the windowing and multi-tasking environment that
would normally ride on top of this.  DOS programs could still have direct
access to the hardware when run from here.  DOS 7.1 may be a little
different from DOS 6.22, but so was DOS 5.0, DOS 3.3, etc.  And so are
DR-DOS, PC-DOS, Caldera DOS, et al.  They're all variations of "real" DOS, a
single-tasking operating system meant to respond similarly to a
semi-standard set of program function calls.



0
dg1261
6/20/2005 8:20:31 PM

John wrote:
> DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do you guys use
> DOS for?
>
> John

I like threads like these - it's always somehow satisfying to read
about the useful tasks to which people put 'old' technology.

however threads like these do come intermittently to DOS groups, and
are noticeable by their absence in groups discussing Windows XP or
MacOS 10 and so on - that the question applied well to DOS reflects
it's gently diminishing role in the computing world.

For me - i still enjoy owning some older, rescued, machines where a
DOS, perhaps with Win3.1, are good.    Anything older than an early
Pentium with modest RAM is a PC that will do well with DOS - and not
just MS-DOS but also Dr-DOS or FreeDOS.

Beyond that spec i would consider Win 95 if available, just for access
to some Win32 apps.   Linux is another possibility, though a more
recent Linux distribtion, even with the leanest GUI, ought to sit on a
P2 wth 64 or more MB RAM, IME.

The DOS apps i like tend to be development tools (DJGPP, Turbo Pascal,
Quick Basic), classic DOS games and the occasional ancient treasure -
like wordstar, some norton utility etc.   Generally DOS apps run very
well under Windows 95 & 98 - but frequently don't run well under the
windows NT lineage.  DOS also makes it relatively easy (and
interesting) to program for direct hardware access using x86 assembly
with interrupts (or their library equivelents in developmet tool
libraries)

As Win9x reaches the end of the line, DOS is finding a limited life in
new machines via such tools as VMWare, Bochs and more direct emulations
- DOSemu, DOSbox.  In these environments a few old apps stumble on, and
a bunch of ageing but fun DOS games get to be played again!

0
gswork
6/21/2005 3:00:01 PM

cml55uk@nsworld.com wrote:
> In article <_Ejre.10953$rt3.3302@fe03.lga>,
> John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote:
> >DOS interests me.  Luckily I still am using Windows 98.  What do
> >you guys use DOS for?
> >
> >John
> >
>
> Hi John,
>
> I've been up the MS-Win path and retro'd back down again as 'patches'
> got larger and larger and more frequent.  Seemed to spend more and more
> time just trying to get and keep it running as I'd like.  So presently I
> now use DOS for more or less everything, word processing, spreadsheet,
> web surfing, Email, news etc.  Stable environment once you've got it setup
> and thereafter no further upgrades/patching required.
>
> My setup's pretty basic with a 300Mhz 32MB RAM and 250MB USB flashstick
> (I now have no hard disk at all).
>
> FLY desktop GUI (inc calendar), Arachne Web Browser, Yarn Email/News,
> NeoPaint and PictView for image manipulation, Dos Navigator (File Manager),
> QP spreadsheet and Word are my core set.
>
> Check out http://www.cml55uk.12freeukisp.co.uk/ if your interested.

that's interesting - running it all from a USB stick - how have you
accomplished that?  it isn't something i'd expect DOS to cope well with.

0
gswork
6/21/2005 3:38:00 PM

rhubarbe0@yahoo.com wrote:

> and I'm sad many computer scientists don't know their commands well.
>
> Example. To find file XYZ.DAT on the C: drive with millions of files.
> Go to
> DOS, type C:, then CD \, then DIR /s XYZ.DAT. That's much faster than
> trying
> to find how to do it in Windows, if it's possible.

i like your post - but the above is not only possible in windows it is
easy, and if you know about the very many windows keyboard shortcuts
9and how to use the keyboard while using windows) it is also easy to
get the file search going with advanced options (e.g. age, size)
quickly.

the key difference is that the ordinary user is lost in DOS if they
don't know about DIR, but could probably figure out what to do on
Windows - even if they don't know about keyboard shortcuts etc.  That
is why windows and GUI work for the mass market.

0
gswork
6/21/2005 3:53:45 PM
>For all the versions of Wordperfect I have, 5.1 for DOS is the best. 

Seconded.  Thirded.  Fourthed.
0
Kevin
6/22/2005 12:21:50 PM


On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, dg1261 wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:20:31 GMT
> From: dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
>
> "straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>> It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If
>>> you're only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt
>>> from within Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS
>>> emulator.
>>
>> Why do you call it an "emulator"?
>>
>>> But MS-DOS 7.1 (the version underlying Win98) is as real as
>>> MS-DOS 6.22.
>>
>> Why do you say this? Please give me a technical explanation. I'd like
>> to know.
>
> At the risk of oversimplifying:  the computer starts with DOS, Win9x runs on
> top of DOS, and a "DOS window" runs on top of Win9x.  A "DOS window" does
> not open a tunnel to the real DOS underneath, it's a command environment
> that runs on top of Win9x and tries to pretend, as much as possible, to look
> and act like the real DOS underneath.
>
> In a real DOS environment, programs have direct access to hardware.  A
> programmer can write code that directly accesses the bios, parallel and
> serial ports, video display registers and buffers, specific memory addresses
> in ram, the hard disk controller, etc.  Being a single-tasking operating
> system, DOS programs also can expect to be the only thing running.
>
> In contrast, Windows is a multi-tasking operating system.

Well, there are people out there who would qualify this. First, Windows 
3.1 did "time slicing" to get multi-tasking (but that's not the only way 
to get multi-tasking [desqview, for one, could do it, too]). For all I 
know, Windows9x and above do the same "time slicing" but since Win9x and 
"DOS" are "integrated," one can say that Win 3.1 is NOT an OS because it 
won't run without a copy of (real) DOS also on the HD. With Win9x, the 
"DOS" was ported to the GUI, etc.

My recollection is that there were DOS programs out there that could make 
DOS multitasking by doing the time-slicing trick. You seem to mention some 
of this in the few sentences below.

  It cordons off
> areas of ram for each running program and essentially time-shares out the
> CPU to those programs.  It cannot let any program--including a DOS
> window--have exclusive access to CPU time or let a program have direct
> access to the hardware because that could have dire consequences to other
> programs running, so Windows blocks (most) attempts to directly access the
> hardware.  Windows reserves those privileges for itself because it has to be
> the ultimate traffic cop in order for multi-tasking to work.  Usually, DOS
> programs that don't work from Windows are those that insist on direct access
> to the hardware.
>
> This is a simplified explanation, and others may jump in here with
> additional details or clarifications, but that should give you the gist of
> the issue.
>
> When you boot from a Win98 boot floppy or hit [F8] and boot to a command
> prompt, you're only doing the first part--starting the underlying DOS.

I may be less knowledgeable than you, but I've got Andrew Schulman's book 
"Unauthorized Windows 95" next to me and from reading here and there in 
the book, there is a lot more going on than the first sentence you wrote 
above indicates. However, the idea of runing (or trying to run) DOS 
programs from a command prompt bootup of a Win9x startup disk did appeal 
to my curiosity.....

> You're not starting up the windowing and multi-tasking environment that
> would normally ride on top of this.  DOS programs could still have direct
> access to the hardware when run from here.  DOS 7.1 may be a little
> different from DOS 6.22, but so was DOS 5.0, DOS 3.3, etc.

There are many parts of DOS that won't work under the wrong version, 
including versions in a species as well as across DOSes (eg PC DOS FDISK 
might not work under the DOS booted from a MS-DOS boot disk; I've had a 
fair bit of experience with this, but did not write down the details of 
which function does not work under a DOS version different from its 
origination family). It is maybe possible to use SETVER to get past this
barrier, but again, I never went that far to try it. I also know there are
many DOS games that won't work or will crash the OS if they are not running
under the correct DOS, so there are differences there, too. I am not a 
game whip, so I don't have a list of what games work or don't work with a 
particular DOS. I also know that NewDealOffice would NOT work under 
FreeDOS (at least the version I had when I tried it) but would work under 
MS-DOS and DR-DOS or OpenDOS.

Earlier today I tried a pure w98se startup disk, only, to try some DOS aps 
under whatever one gets using such a startup disk. At the c prompt, typing 
VER gets back "Win 98 4.10.2228" and not DOS. However, under that I can 
launch MSD and it gives a conditional warning which does not happen under 
"real DOS" (i.e. say, MS-DOS 6.2x, or 5, or 3.3). Also, under this bootup 
and while in MSD, I get a different list of TSRs than if I go into MSD 
under "real DOS" (i.e. 6.22, etc). If, under MSD, I look at what OS it 
says its running, it (MSD) says its "DOS 7.1" even though VER says its 
Win98. The few dos aps I have on that partition did work (I did not try 
extensively to test this), but booting from a Win98se start disk did not 
permit me to launch Win3.1. It gave an error message and told me I had to 
reboot under a correct DOS. LOADLIN (for booting Linux from a DOS 
partition) did work under "W98-DOS" (but does not work under PTS-DOS, by 
the way). But, WordPerfect for DOS ver 5.1 came up with an error message 
calling for more open files and handles (so, at least a different 
autoexec.bat statement would be needed than the default that comes with 
the win98 startup disk bootup).

Whether the Win98 startup disk OS can be called "real DOS" also depends on 
how you define "real DOS". "real DOS" also includes many dozens of 
external functions (i.e. outside of command.com) that are not present in 
the startup disk, not to mention that the command.com for Win9x is about 
double the size of the command.com from DOS 6.x (and PC-DOS 7 which has no 
gui comparable to Windows). So, if you need full DOS capability (including 
CHKDSK, ATTRIB, FDISK, other DOS functionality, etc.) I think you really 
do need REAL DOS and not a Win9x startup disk even though that startup disk
may give you basic functionality (eg. copy, delete, makedir, rmdir, dir, etc) 
including execution.

Another possible relevant observation: At least some DOS games that need a 
mouse driver installed can be run from a DOS window under Win98se (I've 
done it) but will not run under the "DOS" that you get from the command 
prompt under a boot from the Win98 startup disk.

Getting back to the Schulman book (same guy who wrote, with a couple of 
other authors, the book "Undocumented DOS" and had a lot of information on 
the long term efforts of MS to develop a OS monopoly as well as a lot of 
information about the descrepancies between the public statements about 
what Windows does and does not do compared to what it really does do [thus 
MS did a lot of lying to the public], but nobody really cares about this).

Regarding the program that I said the manual said it won't work, period, 
under windows...I don't have the ap handy, can't find the manuals, and 
don't have the interfacing electronics that it worked with and it would be 
far too impractical to try it under a win9x startup to prompt boot. My 
recollection from some technical details is that windows initiallizes com 
ports in some funny way and that prevents the external electronics from 
working.

One more funny detail: I have several boxes here, different OSes, boot 
managers on some, and find that some DOS games will work on one box (in a 
DOS window) but not another box (in a DOS window). And, I'm not talking 
about a speed problem. At least in the normal sense. A game either works, 
or it hangs up the DOS box and the program has to be terminated by a right 
click on the icon in the task bar. I even had a couple of DOS games crash 
Win98se! And, as a related observation, out of several boxes I've 
installed Red Hat Linux 5.2 or 6.2, I've seen very slightly and subtle 
differences in features of Linux under different hardware. Nothing major, 
but just funny little things (again, I did not take notes on the details 
but from the same install CDROM I get noticeable OS functionality 
differences). Some of this could be due to some obscure hardware 
malfunction (eg. bum RAM at some address) or SW bugs or incompatibilities 
(and this really happens, too) but generally if I can install DOS-Win3.1, 
OS/2, and Win9x, and Linux on the same hard drive of the same computer and 
get internet access under all bootable OSes, then the hardware is OK. I 
have had boxes where some OSes worked, others did not even though the 
install went fine. You really don't know if the install is OK until you 
try out all of the functionalities that you want and make sure they all 
work.


   And so are
> DR-DOS, PC-DOS, Caldera DOS, et al.  They're all variations of "real" DOS, a
> single-tasking operating system meant to respond similarly to a
> semi-standard set of program function calls.
>
>
>
>










0
straydog
6/24/2005 3:42:35 AM
Here in comp.os.msdos.misc,
straydog <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> spake unto us, saying:

>My recollection is that there were DOS programs out there that could make 
>DOS multitasking by doing the time-slicing trick. You seem to mention some 
>of this in the few sentences below.

I'm not the OP, but DESQview was one environment that I used under DOS
to get a form of DOS time slicing, though some programs like Telemate
(which I used heavily back in my DOS days) had their own multitasking
capabilities (making DV use less of a requirement).

I've used OS/2 as a DOS multitasker since the early 90's, though.  It's
a little more flexible than DOS multitaskers are, and it also has fairly
low resource requirements.  Warp 3 or Warp 4 using TSHELL instead of PM
should run fairly well on an 8MB box, and perhaps also on a 4MB box.

-- 
 -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Smyrna, GA USA
  OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
       WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
0
rsteiner
6/24/2005 4:47:13 AM

straydog wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, dg1261 wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:20:31 GMT
> > From: dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> > Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?

> Another possible relevant observation: At least some DOS games that need a
> mouse driver installed can be run from a DOS window under Win98se (I've
> done it) but will not run under the "DOS" that you get from the command
> prompt under a boot from the Win98 startup disk.

i've noted that also - when launching an app needing a mouse from the
DOS win9x gives you (exit and start dos, or boot disk) i find launching
from a .bat that sets cutemouse to be useful.

> One more funny detail: I have several boxes here, different OSes, boot
> managers on some, and find that some DOS games will work on one box (in a
> DOS window) but not another box (in a DOS window). And, I'm not talking
> about a speed problem. At least in the normal sense. A game either works,
> or it hangs up the DOS box and the program has to be terminated by a right
> click on the icon in the task bar. I even had a couple of DOS games crash
> Win98se!

this is often related to drivers and hardware, especially in games that
employ direct hardware calls to the VGA board, sound card and so on.
Sound cards are the most troublesome, ime, but 16 or 32 bit extenders
can also lead to trouble.  The problem is just as true in pure DOS
environments and is one of the reasons that the departure of DOS as a
games platform was seen postively by a great many gamers and game
developers - who got into OpenGL and DirectX (after ver 3).

0
gswork
6/24/2005 7:49:16 AM
> It is maybe possible to use SETVER to get past this
>barrier, but again, I never went that far to try it.

It is for many DOS external utilities.  DrDOS external 
utilities can also be used.
0
Kevin
6/24/2005 1:26:25 PM
"straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> >>> It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If
> >>> you're only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt
> >>> from within Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS
> >>> emulator.
> ...(snipped)...
> There are many parts of DOS that won't work under the wrong version,
> including versions in a species as well as across DOSes (eg PC DOS FDISK
> might not work under the DOS booted from a MS-DOS boot disk; I've had a
> fair bit of experience with this, but did not write down the details of
> which function does not work under a DOS version different from its
> origination family). It is maybe possible to use SETVER to get past this
> barrier, but again, I never went that far to try it. I also know there are
> many DOS games that won't work or will crash the OS if they are not
> running
> under the correct DOS, so there are differences there, too. I am not a
> game whip, so I don't have a list of what games work or don't work with a
> particular DOS. I also know that NewDealOffice would NOT work under
> FreeDOS (at least the version I had when I tried it) but would work under
> MS-DOS and DR-DOS or OpenDOS.
>
> Earlier today I tried a pure w98se startup disk, only, to try some DOS aps
> under whatever one gets using such a startup disk. At the c prompt, typing
> VER gets back "Win 98 4.10.2228" and not DOS. However, under that I can
> launch MSD and it gives a conditional warning which does not happen under
> "real DOS" (i.e. say, MS-DOS 6.2x, or 5, or 3.3). Also, under this bootup
> and while in MSD, I get a different list of TSRs than if I go into MSD
> under "real DOS" (i.e. 6.22, etc). If, under MSD, I look at what OS it
> says its running, it (MSD) says its "DOS 7.1" even though VER says its
> Win98. The few dos aps I have on that partition did work (I did not try
> extensively to test this), but booting from a Win98se start disk did not
> permit me to launch Win3.1. It gave an error message and told me I had to
> reboot under a correct DOS. LOADLIN (for booting Linux from a DOS
> partition) did work under "W98-DOS" (but does not work under PTS-DOS, by
> the way). But, WordPerfect for DOS ver 5.1 came up with an error message
> calling for more open files and handles (so, at least a different
> autoexec.bat statement would be needed than the default that comes with
> the win98 startup disk bootup).

.....none of which has any bearing on how a "DOS window" under Windows is
different from "real" DOS.  Those are all examples of how dumb or
intelligent the DOS app is.  It's a matter of how willing the programmer was
to make his program compatible across different versions or brands.  It's a
matter of "won't" versus "can't".  If you use, oh... let's say, DOS function
44/0D to write to a drive, your program won't work on DOS versions prior to
3.2.  But that doesn't mean you couldn't write to drives before version
3.2--you just have to use different functions or write your own code to do
the same thing that became built into DOS in later versions.

The fact that some programs may restrict themselves to looking for certain
cues in specific OS brands is a limitation of the program, not the OS.  None
of the brands or versions are 100% compatible with each other, but that
doesn't mean some aren't "real" DOS.  They are 16-bit, real mode,
single-tasking operating systems.  Windows is a 32-bit, protected mode,
multi-tasking OS.  DOS and Windows are as different as apples and oranges,
while comparing different brands of DOS is merely comparing different kinds
of apples.  Once Windows switches the CPU into protected mode, there's no
way you can run it in real mode and protected mode at the same time, no
matter how clever you are at programming.  A "DOS window" does not enable
you to run a program in real mode.  But booting MS-DOS 7.1, which has not
switched into protected mode, is just as legitimately "DOS" as DR-DOS or
Caldera DOS or any of the others.  The fact that Microsoft never officially
released MS-DOS 7.1 as a standalone OS doesn't mean it's not DOS.


> So, if you need full DOS capability (including CHKDSK, ATTRIB, FDISK,
> other DOS functionality, etc.) I think you really do need REAL DOS and
> not a Win9x startup disk even though that startup disk may give you basic
> functionality (eg. copy, delete, makedir, rmdir, dir, etc) including
execution.

Those files are there.  On a normal Windows installation you'll find them in
the c:\windows\command directory.  Take a FAT/FAT32 partition, boot from a
Win98 startup disk, "sys c:", copy all files from the floppy, copy all files
from another computer's c:\windows\command directory and a few (like
himem.sys, emm386.exe) from c:\windows, and you'll end up with a 16-bit,
real mode operating system every bit as complete as MS-DOS 6.2.  No, they're
not 100% compatible, but MS-DOS 6.2 isn't 100% compatible with MS-DOS 5.0,
either.


0
dg1261
6/24/2005 10:33:06 PM
straydog <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

>booting from a Win98se start disk did not permit me to launch Win3.1. It 
>gave an error message and told me I had to reboot under a correct DOS.

	There is a program on the Web, 3XSTART.EXE, that will patch the 
IO.SYS file of DOS 7.1 to permit Windows 3.1 to start under Win98's DOS.

>Whether the Win98 startup disk OS can be called "real DOS" also depends on 
>how you define "real DOS". "real DOS" also includes many dozens of 
>external functions (i.e. outside of command.com) that are not present in 
>the startup disk, not to mention that the command.com for Win9x is about 
>double the size of the command.com from DOS 6.x (and PC-DOS 7 which has no 
>gui comparable to Windows). So, if you need full DOS capability (including 
>CHKDSK, ATTRIB, FDISK, other DOS functionality, etc.) I think you really 
>do need REAL DOS and not a Win9x startup disk even though that startup disk
>may give you basic functionality (eg. copy, delete, makedir, rmdir, dir, etc) 
>including execution.

	True, but if you copy all of the external DOS programs from the 
Win98 \WINDOWS\COMMAND subdirectory to a bootable disk, you can have an 
essentially complete version of DOS 7.1.  They won't all fit on a standard 
1.4 Mb floppy (but neither did everything in MS-DOS 6.2), and a few were 
dropped from DOS 7 (notably TREE.COM, if I recall correctly, but a TREE 
copy from DOS 6.2 does work in 7.1 when SETVER is used with it).
-- 
							--Donald Davis

[To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
0
Donald
6/24/2005 11:26:39 PM

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, dg1261 wrote:

> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:33:06 GMT
> From: dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
>
> "straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>>>> It's not clear what you mean by "The 'DOS' that Win9x provides".  If
>>>>> you're only talking about opening a DOS window or the DOS prompt
>>>>> from within Windows, then agreed, that's not real DOS, it's a DOS
>>>>> emulator.
>> ...(snipped)...
>> There are many parts of DOS that won't work under the wrong version,
>> including versions in a species as well as across DOSes (eg PC DOS FDISK
>> might not work under the DOS booted from a MS-DOS boot disk; I've had a
>> fair bit of experience with this, but did not write down the details of
>> which function does not work under a DOS version different from its
>> origination family). It is maybe possible to use SETVER to get past this
>> barrier, but again, I never went that far to try it. I also know there are
>> many DOS games that won't work or will crash the OS if they are not
>> running
>> under the correct DOS, so there are differences there, too. I am not a
>> game whip, so I don't have a list of what games work or don't work with a
>> particular DOS. I also know that NewDealOffice would NOT work under
>> FreeDOS (at least the version I had when I tried it) but would work under
>> MS-DOS and DR-DOS or OpenDOS.
>>
>> Earlier today I tried a pure w98se startup disk, only, to try some DOS aps
>> under whatever one gets using such a startup disk. At the c prompt, typing
>> VER gets back "Win 98 4.10.2228" and not DOS. However, under that I can
>> launch MSD and it gives a conditional warning which does not happen under
>> "real DOS" (i.e. say, MS-DOS 6.2x, or 5, or 3.3). Also, under this bootup
>> and while in MSD, I get a different list of TSRs than if I go into MSD
>> under "real DOS" (i.e. 6.22, etc). If, under MSD, I look at what OS it
>> says its running, it (MSD) says its "DOS 7.1" even though VER says its
>> Win98. The few dos aps I have on that partition did work (I did not try
>> extensively to test this), but booting from a Win98se start disk did not
>> permit me to launch Win3.1. It gave an error message and told me I had to
>> reboot under a correct DOS. LOADLIN (for booting Linux from a DOS
>> partition) did work under "W98-DOS" (but does not work under PTS-DOS, by
>> the way). But, WordPerfect for DOS ver 5.1 came up with an error message
>> calling for more open files and handles (so, at least a different
>> autoexec.bat statement would be needed than the default that comes with
>> the win98 startup disk bootup).
>
> ....none of which has any bearing on how a "DOS window" under Windows is
> different from "real" DOS.  Those are all examples of how dumb or
> intelligent the DOS app is.  It's a matter of how willing the programmer was
> to make his program compatible across different versions or brands.  It's a
> matter of "won't" versus "can't".  If you use, oh... let's say, DOS function
> 44/0D to write to a drive, your program won't work on DOS versions prior to
> 3.2.  But that doesn't mean you couldn't write to drives before version
> 3.2--you just have to use different functions or write your own code to do
> the same thing that became built into DOS in later versions.
>
> The fact that some programs may restrict themselves to looking for certain
> cues in specific OS brands is a limitation of the program, not the OS.

This is arguable in the face of Schulman's earlier book "Undocumented DOS" 
where each OS being developed (DR, MS, PC, etc) all had their own 
undocumented features, calls, etc. Thus, as I pointed out that Netscape 
2.01 dialer/TCPIP would support Netscape 2.01 AND other internet aps under 
MS-DOS, only, but not any other DOS. It is thus impossible for the ap author
to make his/her ap fit ALL DOSes and thus disproves your sentence above and 
its on the grounds that the author can't know the undocumented features 
without doing the extra kind of work that Schulman et al. did.

As a matter of fact, MS had a special version of Win3.1 for IBMs butterfly 
thinkpad that worked over PC-DOS 6.3 that all came with the thinkpad. I 
did backups of the Win3.1 for the butterfly and, lo and behold, that 
version of Win3.1 would work on some PCs (regardless of whether it was 
over MS-DOS or non-MS DOS) but NOT work on others (hardware 
incompatibilities? Just like, eg. Linux? OS/2?). Furthermore, I could make 
an installation of Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS on the PC-DOS containing 
thinkpad, then just copy all the files off that install and put them on a 
non IBM PC with either PC or MS DOS and that WP 5.1 would not work (Same 
for Procomm Plus). The install (vs. copying) procedure must detect certain 
things in the hardware and OS and then proceed to make adjustments in 
certain files to get all of the functionality of Wordperfect for DOS.

So, if the OS doesn't have what the ap needs, then there is a problem. 
And, that's not the OSes fault either. Several years ago there was a lot 
of screaming in the computer trade rags (eWeek, inforworld, computerworld, 
etc) about incompatibilities and upgrade/patches and management. I do know 
from Schumman's recent book "Unauthorized Windows 95" that all the tricks 
these guys (eg. Bill Gates' crew) do are a lot more complicated than what 
I care to put out to understand what they are doing. See my ending 
comments.

   None
> of the brands or versions are 100% compatible with each other, but that
> doesn't mean some aren't "real" DOS.

We were originally talking about your claim that a Windows startup disk 
boot is as real dos as any DOS os prior to Windows (and I think you really 
have to differentiate Windows 9x from Win3.1 which, to me, is more of a 
DOS extender and NOT an OS. But, I don't want to argue too much semantics.

  They are 16-bit, real mode,
> single-tasking operating systems.  Windows is a 32-bit, protected mode,
> multi-tasking OS.  DOS and Windows are as different as apples and oranges,
> while comparing different brands of DOS is merely comparing different kinds
> of apples.  Once Windows switches the CPU into protected mode, there's no
> way you can run it in real mode and protected mode at the same time, no
> matter how clever you are at programming.  A "DOS window" does not enable
> you to run a program in real mode.  But booting MS-DOS 7.1, which has not
> switched into protected mode, is just as legitimately "DOS" as DR-DOS or
> Caldera DOS or any of the others.  The fact that Microsoft never officially
> released MS-DOS 7.1 as a standalone OS doesn't mean it's not DOS.

Like I said, I used MSD on a boot-off-startup and it showed as MS-DOS 7.1. 
Maybe its just a trick to confuse the user?

>
>> So, if you need full DOS capability (including CHKDSK, ATTRIB, FDISK,
>> other DOS functionality, etc.) I think you really do need REAL DOS and
>> not a Win9x startup disk even though that startup disk may give you basic
>> functionality (eg. copy, delete, makedir, rmdir, dir, etc) including
> execution.
>
> Those files are there.  On a normal Windows installation you'll find them in
> the c:\windows\command directory.

But not, as you were mentioning, available from a booted Win9x startup 
disk. Or, are you saying that if I copied them from that directory that 
they would still work on the boot-off-startup?

   Take a FAT/FAT32 partition, boot from a
> Win98 startup disk, "sys c:", copy all files from the floppy, copy all files
> from another computer's c:\windows\command directory and a few (like
> himem.sys, emm386.exe) from c:\windows, and you'll end up with a 16-bit,
> real mode operating system every bit as complete as MS-DOS 6.2.  No, they're
> not 100% compatible, but MS-DOS 6.2 isn't 100% compatible with MS-DOS 5.0,
> either.

Well, then, in the final analysis, you just have to try your specific ap 
to see if it runs and runs with all of its features. So, from all of this, 
I'm just going to tentatively redefine my idea of "real DOS" as "whatever 
you need to get your DOS application to run".

However, lets look at the Win3.1 file manager (which I like beyond 
anything else out there, including the file manager with the later 
versions of linux). In Win3.1 you can make various modifications, 
including create a new directory, and it will do its own refresh. The 
Win3.1 file manager will run under Win9x but you can create a new 
directory and it will NOT do a refresh. Thus, whatever "OS" functionality 
provided by the Win9x environment is NOT equivalent to the "Win3.1 plus 
the DOS that is needed by Win3.1" environment. So, OK, as you say (and I 
said, too), there are a lot of differences between the various DOS species 
(PC, DR, MS, etc for a given version), but I'm going to still lean on the 
notion (or at least preference) that I'd rather run my DOS aps under "real 
DOS" than under a boot up from a Win9x startup disk (maybe even full of 
those files, or files copied, that have the other "DOS functions"). And, 
from a practical standpoint, most of the people I run into (your average 
PC consumer/gamer/dabbler) just don't want to fiddle around that much with 
their hardware and software.

Lastly, I also really don't want to spend a lot of time, myself, fiddling 
with what a boot off a Win9x start disk can let me do for DOS aps. It 
seems like I recall some other tests I did some 5-6 years ago with Win3.1 
on non MS-DOS DOSes and I had some problems. Obviously, one issue is the 
undocumented features that Schulman et al found out by hacking. Yes, its 
interesting, as you pointed out, that one can get at least a lot of DOS 
functionality from a boot to prompt off of a Win9x startup disk. Me, I'd 
just rather use my System Commander to get the environment I 
need/want/prefer. Thanks, otherwise.


















































































0
straydog
6/26/2005 12:47:13 AM

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Donald G. Davis wrote:

> Date: 24 Jun 2005 23:26:39 GMT
> From: Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
> straydog <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> booting from a Win98se start disk did not permit me to launch Win3.1. It
>> gave an error message and told me I had to reboot under a correct DOS.
>
> 	There is a program on the Web, 3XSTART.EXE, that will patch the
> IO.SYS file of DOS 7.1 to permit Windows 3.1 to start under Win98's DOS.

Thanks for the tip.... I'll file this somewhere.

>> Whether the Win98 startup disk OS can be called "real DOS" also depends on
>> how you define "real DOS". "real DOS" also includes many dozens of
>> external functions (i.e. outside of command.com) that are not present in
>> the startup disk, not to mention that the command.com for Win9x is about
>> double the size of the command.com from DOS 6.x (and PC-DOS 7 which has no
>> gui comparable to Windows). So, if you need full DOS capability (including
>> CHKDSK, ATTRIB, FDISK, other DOS functionality, etc.) I think you really
>> do need REAL DOS and not a Win9x startup disk even though that startup disk
>> may give you basic functionality (eg. copy, delete, makedir, rmdir, dir, etc)
>> including execution.
>
> 	True, but if you copy all of the external DOS programs from the
> Win98 \WINDOWS\COMMAND subdirectory to a bootable disk, you can have an
> essentially complete version of DOS 7.1.  They won't all fit on a standard
> 1.4 Mb floppy (but neither did everything in MS-DOS 6.2), and a few were
> dropped from DOS 7 (notably TREE.COM, if I recall correctly, but a TREE
> copy from DOS 6.2 does work in 7.1 when SETVER is used with it).
> -- 
> 							--Donald Davis

Well, the original question was whether the DOS you get from Win9x is 
"real DOS" and I participated in the discussion from the point of view 
that I had one program (and associated outboard hardware) that the 
instructions said the DOS in Win9x won't work, period, so don't even try 
it. I didn't. I also recall some discussion back a couple years ago from 
people who were trying DOS programs in either DOS windows or full screen 
under Win9x and those programs were not working. I did not bother to 
participate but IIRC there were other guys who knew lots more than I did 
(based on what they posted) that said its not "real DOS" and I left it at 
that. There are also those pif files and setver options. Maybe some of 
them will come to this newsgroup in the near future and add their two 
cents. For me, I've pretty much don't got the time or interest in fiddling 
that much (I've got, after many years of DOS, Win, Linux, OS/2 fiddling 
just what I want) any more. But, most of the guys who were posting about 
their DOS programs not working under a Windows DOS window seemed to not 
have the faintest idea about just using DOS. I stayed in the background 
and kept my mouth shut. Well, dg1261 made me try a boot to prompt off a 
startup disk, and, yes, the few DOS programs I had on the partition did 
work. Interesting, but this is not going to change how I use my computers.

I do know that I _don't_ want to try a large selection of my DOS programs 
under such a boot to prompt because its an academic question and I know 
that I can't anticipate getting any functionality that I don't have now 
that I need. But, like your experience with TREE, I don't want to fool 
around with some new configuration because I don't have the time to fool 
with it. I have found a number of Win3.1 aps and DOS aps that work fine 
under Win98SE and I've got shortcuts on my desktop. I also know of several 
DOS aps (mainly games) and several Win3.1 aps that DONT work under Win98SE 
and I don't care if its "real DOS" or not if the ap doesn't work. And, I'm 
very happy with some of those Win3.1 aps that do work under Win98SE (one 
is Filemaker Pro ver 2.1 for Win3.1).

But, thank you for your comments, otherwise.























0
straydog
6/26/2005 1:01:45 AM
"straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> We were originally talking about your claim that a Windows startup
> disk boot is as real dos as any DOS os prior to Windows

It is.  And I've explained why.  But you keep getting hung up on differences
between the various flavors of DOS.  If you can't see the forest for the
trees, then I guess that's as far as we're gonna get.


0
dg1261
6/26/2005 5:44:54 AM

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, dg1261 wrote:

> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:44:54 GMT
> From: dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
> Subject: Re: Who still uses DOS and for what?
> 
>
> "straydog" <aes1492@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>> We were originally talking about your claim that a Windows startup
>> disk boot is as real dos as any DOS os prior to Windows
>
> It is.  And I've explained why.  But you keep getting hung up on differences
> between the various flavors of DOS.  If you can't see the forest for the
> trees, then I guess that's as far as we're gonna get.
>
>
>

I have explained and gave examples of DOS programs or DOS aps, including 
Win3.1 where what you get in functionality is different between the Win9x 
environment and the DOS environment. This includes that Win3.1 will not 
load from that boot-from-Win9x-startup prompt (also acknowledgeing the 
person who said there was a patch that would allow that). There will often 
be "work arounds" or whatever for things that don't work.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is whatever you want to work, and
work fully, you'd be better off to look for the required DOS than to go
and possibly waste time trying to get something to work under the
booted-from-Win9x-startup prompt. Again, I'm not interested in spending
a large amount of time proving you right (by testing all of my DOS/Win3.1
aps under the boot-from-Win9x-startup prompt. If you want to claim that THAT is "real DOS" just like any REAL 
DOS [and, again, I'll define that as MS-DOS 6.22 or before, DR DOS 7.x or 
befor, PC-DOS 7.x or befor <although there is a later DR DOS and IBM has a 
PC-DOS 2000, maybe others>]), or proving you wrong by making further lists 
of conditional operation of DOS aps under your boot-from-Win9x-startup 
prompt or whatever you get with a DOS window or full screen.

I gave examples where what you get in functionality between different
DOSes (eg. PC, MS, DR, and others) may also be different, including
crashes. I've had years of experience showing this even though it is 
somewhat besides the point.

I also cited Schulman's two books that go into vastly greater detail but 
I am also not as interested in becomeing expert about but suggest to me 
that the whole issue is much more complicated than either you or I know 
that much about.

I will remember, in case it comes up in future conversation, that I had an 
extented discussion with someone on a newsgroup who claimed and gave an 
explanation (that I was not satisfied with) that the 
boot-from-Win9x-startup prompt gives "real DOS". As a result of this 
discussion, I will also modify my notion of what "real DOS" means but I'm 
also going to suggest that it will be more practical for people to simply 
boot with a boot manager into whatever DOS they need rather than get the 
prompt from a boot-from-win9x-startup disk prompt and that is because I 
see insufficient evidence (eg. 98-99% of all DOS programs really do run off 
that prompt (unless you care to tell me that you have tried, say, 100 DOS 
programs and all but one or two are totally functional).  On the other 
hand, if someone has some kind of situation where they need "DOS" but only 
have Win9x, I'll keep in mind your finding that the boot prompt will give 
at least some, maybe even a lot, of DOS functionality. Beyond that, I'm 
not interested in pursuing the technical details beyond what my experience
showed me.














0
straydog
6/26/2005 7:23:55 PM
straydog wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Richard Bonner wrote:

> >> straydog wrote:
> >> I have one DOS application developed after Win9xs came out and the
> >> instructions say that any "DOS" (DOS window, or full screen, or tricks)
> >> derived from Win9x will not work; a Real DOS, eg PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc
> >> (there are many) has to be booted then load the windowing
> >> stuff after.
> >
> > ***   So, this program will run when Win 9.x is booted into DOS
> > from scratch? What happens when Windows is set to allow that program full
> > control?

> Are you talking about a pif file? Or using setver?

***   Neither. I was referring to setting the DOS properties in WIndows.


> >> I'm happy. Haven't bought much new software in
> >> years (some Linuxes, that's all), and everything works and I'm satisfied.
> >
> > ***   Then you are missing out on what the latest DOS versions and
> > software have to offer. Try some of them - you may be even happier.  (-:

> Hi Richard, we've talked before with me under a different alias and email 
> address. 

***   Hello, Art.


> Unfortunately I don't have the time any more to play with any new 
> DOS software. I found a bunch of old CDROMs of DOS shareware and found a 
> few games I like a lot.

***   There are many old DOS programs and utilities that are still very
useful in the 21st century. I have some that go back into the 1980s which 
I use on a regular basis. Old does not mean useless.


> ...I do business on line, too. Two business websites I do 
> business with won't work on any browsers older than 1-2 years, but they do 
> work with Lynx and Links.

***   If it's a company with which I often do business, I usually write a
firm and somewhat nasty e-mail complaining about such websites. Companies
need to realise that they are shutting out potential business when their
websites are not 100% accessible to all. When I started to make my
websites text/handicapped friendly back in the 1990s, my hits counts
zoomed greatly. (A text/handicapped friendly website is accessible by all
browsers on all platforms.)


> I also like to find perfectly fine PCs in church rummage sales and thrift 
> shops for $5 to $50 each. Even picked up an XP box for $50 (including 
> monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and all I use it for is burning CDROM 
> disks. In the office (my other business) I still print out insurance 
> claim forms with DOS and an HP 4L laserjet.

***   Old computers are still plenty usable if one stays away from
bloatware. I have a DX4-100 that does graphics and Internet quite easily.


> For all the versions of Wordperfect I have, 5.1 for DOS is the best. 
> Farther up you go, actually the farther away from ability to manipulate a 
> file you get. Go into reveal codes and you can't touch the 'tab' character 
> in either 6.0 for windows 9x or 5.2 for win3.1.

> Art S.

***   I love 5.1 too, even though I have newer versions. 5.1 is *fast*. I
had a friend at my business one day for whom I typed up a letter. He
couldn't believe how fast I loaded the program, typed the letter,
spell-checked it, saved it, exited, and got it on to floppy for him. We
were chatting during the operation and he eventually wanted to know if we
could finish up. I pulled the floppy from the drive and said: "Here you
go." He was flabbergasted! 


> DOS: smaller, safer (the sun might stop shining before you get another DOS 
> virus, anyone write any in the last 10 years?), faster, simpler, 
> easier!

***   I agree. Be aware though, that using DOS still means that one may be
a carrier for newer viruses. One must still be careful when giving files
to others.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/12/2005 10:26:44 AM
gswork@mailcity.com wrote:

> I like threads like these - it's always somehow satisfying to read
> about the useful tasks to which people put 'old' technology.

***   No disrespect meant, but this attitude is typical of those
brainwashed by Microsoft marketing. Windows is old technology, too. It was
developed in the 1980s. However, it has progressed. Windows users need to
know that DOS too, has progressed. Just because Microsoft stopped
developing it and its software over a decade ago, does not mean that
others have not brought DOS into the 21st century. 


> however threads like these do come intermittently to DOS groups, and
> are noticeable by their absence in groups discussing Windows XP or
> MacOS 10 and so on

***   Part of the reason is that the manuals which come with Windows
don't even acknowledge that DOS or some form of it is included with the
OS. There are no tutorials given on its usage. It seems that the only way
to get rid of DOS is to force it out of the marketplace and the minds of
its users and possible users.


> For me - i still enjoy owning some older, rescued, machines where a
> DOS, perhaps with Win3.1, are good.    Anything older than an early
> Pentium with modest RAM is a PC that will do well with DOS - and not
> just MS-DOS but also Dr-DOS or FreeDOS.

***   True, but I prefer to run DOS on a faster machine. It's handy when
multitasking or doing CPU-intensive work. When not doing this, DOS is
like teflon lightning! I usually run my DOS machines in single-tasking
mode because of the latter, but will load a task-switcher or multitasker
when I need to have more than one application at my fingertips.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/12/2005 10:39:01 AM
gswork@mailcity.com wrote:

> rhubarbe0@yahoo.com wrote:

> > and I'm sad many computer scientists don't know their commands well.
> >
> > Example. To find file XYZ.DAT on the C: drive with millions of files.
> > Go to DOS, type C:, then CD \, then DIR /s XYZ.DAT. That's much
> > faster than trying to find how to do it in Windows, if it's possible.

> i like your post - but the above is not only possible in windows it is
> easy, and if you know about the very many windows keyboard shortcuts
> and how to use the keyboard while using windows) it is also easy to
> get the file search going with advanced options (e.g. age, size)
> quickly.

> the key difference is that the ordinary user is lost in DOS if they
> don't know about DIR, but could probably figure out what to do on
> Windows - even if they don't know about keyboard shortcuts etc.  That
> is why windows and GUI work for the mass market.

***   Yes, but when DOS was mainstream, DOS users could figure out how to
do it because their brains were in command-line mode. GUI users are lost
at the command line because they never graduated from pointing at
pictures, as a kindergarten student does. They just never seem to learn
to read and are stuck in that picture-pointing mode into adulthood.  )-:

   My big complaint about GUI file maintenance is that one can never get
away from that *#{)P()*(# tree climbing. I roll my eyes every time I am at
some person's GUI setup and he starts the tree climb while I impatiently
drum my fingers. How sad that so many GUIers never learned to read.  (-:

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/12/2005 10:46:37 AM
straydog wrote:

> My recollection is that there were DOS programs out there that could make 
> DOS multitasking by doing the time-slicing trick. 

***   I remember a communications program that could download in the
background within itself; that is, needing no multitasker. Telemate?
Telix? I can't remember...


> At least some DOS games that need a 
> mouse driver installed can be run from a DOS window under Win98se (I've 
> done it) but will not run under the "DOS" that you get from the command 
> prompt under a boot from the Win98 startup disk.

***   That may be because no mouse drive was loaded. Load a mouse driver
in AUTOEXEC and the game should run. I recommend "Cute Mouse".


> I have several boxes here, different OSes, boot 
> managers on some, and find that some DOS games will work on one box (in a 
> DOS window) but not another box (in a DOS window). 

***   That may be hardware incompatibilities, or the DOS properties are
not set up correctly.


> And, I'm not talking 
> about a speed problem. At least in the normal sense. A game either works, 
> or it hangs up the DOS box and the program has to be terminated by a right 
> click on the icon in the task bar. I even had a couple of DOS games crash 
> Win98se! 

***   You might try checking "Prevent DOS Programs from Detecting Windows"
in "Advanced Properties".

   I went through a lot of these headaches until I realised that I was
doing all this work just to use programs which had been running absolutely
fine before. Why was I knocking myself out to suffer with a slower, more
bloated, and more tedious-to-use operating system? That realisation, along
with the frequent lockups, crashes, and other Windoze nuisances made me
upgrade everything to DOS back in 1999. 

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/12/2005 11:04:42 AM

Richard Bonner wrote:
> gswork@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> > I like threads like these - it's always somehow satisfying to read
> > about the useful tasks to which people put 'old' technology.
>
> ***   No disrespect meant, but this attitude is typical of those
> brainwashed by Microsoft marketing. Windows is old technology, too. It was
> developed in the 1980s. However, it has progressed. Windows users need to
> know that DOS too, has progressed. Just because Microsoft stopped
> developing it and its software over a decade ago, does not mean that
> others have not brought DOS into the 21st century.

indeed, that is why i said 'old' rather than old, because what is old?
A hammers is an excellent design and has been for very mnay years!  If
people can use DOS for their requirements and it is working well then
is it old in the sense of being out of dat date?  No, just old (and in
cases where modified and updated DOS is being used, not even old!)

0
gswork
7/12/2005 12:21:18 PM
gswork@mailcity.com wrote:

> Richard Bonner wrote:
> > gswork@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > > I like threads like these - it's always somehow satisfying to read
> > > about the useful tasks to which people put 'old' technology.
> >
> > ***   No disrespect meant, but this attitude is typical of those
> > brainwashed by Microsoft marketing. Windows is old technology, too. It was
> > developed in the 1980s. However, it has progressed. Windows users need to
> > know that DOS too, has progressed. Just because Microsoft stopped
> > developing it and its software over a decade ago, does not mean that
> > others have not brought DOS into the 21st century.

> indeed, that is why i said 'old' rather than old, because what is old?

***   Ahh, yes. Sorry, I never clued into that.


> A hammers is an excellent design and has been for very mnay years!  If
> people can use DOS for their requirements and it is working well then
> is it old in the sense of being out of dat date?  No, just old (and in
> cases where modified and updated DOS is being used, not even old!)

***   I fall into the latter category, although I have remnants of older
DOS commands on my systems because they continue to work as I want. In
particular, I still often use the REPLACE command.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/13/2005 10:59:22 AM
CJ wrote:
> >Richard Bonner wrote :
> >***   I fall into the latter category, although I have remnants of older
> >DOS commands on my systems because they continue to work as I want. In
> >particular, I still often use the REPLACE command.

> Richard, I'm assuming, probably incorrectly, you're using REPLACE for
> Ramdisk content mirroring back to hardisk prior to shutdown?

***   No. I use REPLACE to update directories and/or my home & work
computers. It will add files in the source directory that are not
contained in the target directory to the target directory. It will also
update existing files with the newest versions.


> If so then that would leave any deleted files from the ramdisk session
> still existing on the hardisk.

***   That would be correct. If I need to sychronise directories, I use
XXCOPY.

   As for the RAM drive, I *never* save any files to a RAM drive. All
writings are done to the hard drive only. I use aggressive cache settings
so that I may continue working while files are being written. So to me,
there is no interruption. 

   The only exceptions to the no-write-to-RAM-Drive are when files are
being transferred or are temporarily being written to the RAM drive. I use
my RAM drive as a clearing house for file operations but files are then
immediately moved to their storage directories on the hard or floppy
discs. This is all done via batch files and is completely automated. 

   A typical example of this us that I can copy or move any files to any
location on any of my hard drive partitions without specifying the drive
or even a complete directory name. The files are copied or moved to the
RAM drive as a holding area and then moved to the destination directory.
This is done for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here, but
even with this extra step, the operation happens instantly. I love to do
this because it dazzles the GUIers. (-:


> My setup is simply a floppy (as my BIOS doesn't support USB booting)
> and USB flashstick (250MB), with 64MB RAM (no hardisk at all). I create a
> 32MB ramdisk on startup and extract from an archive on the flashstick all
> of the files I want on the Ramdisk.  I then TOUCH those files to a very
> early date e.g. 1-1-1984 and then XCOPY across any updates from a 'Changes'
> sub-dir (recursive sub-dir copy) from the flashstick to the ramdisk.

***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? I am
thinking of getting a USB MM for a laptop I am about to acquire but
haven't looked into DOS drivers for USB yet.


> Prior to shutdown I delete the Changes directories contents and XCOPY
> with date option (set later than the touch date of 1-1-1984) all of the
> changed/new files from the ramdisk. That way, any deleted files are
> mirrored as having been deleted.  The exception being if a deleted file
> is one based in the archive (I tend to update the archive reasonably
> regularly so as to keep the number of XCopied files down to a lowish
> number).

***   I'm sorry, but I have lost the gist of this. If a file residing on
both your USB MM and your RAM drive has been deleted on the RAM drive, how
does it get deleted from the USB MM?


> Principally I only have Arachne web-browser, UKA_PPP - news/email transport
> and FLY DOS GUI's icon/desktop files on ramdisk, all of the other stuff
> such as Quatro spreadsheeting, word processing, pictview, dos-navigator,
> Neopaint etc all run fine off the flashstick with TEMP set to the Ramdisk.
> FLY also runs reasonably well when fully based on the flashstick, but can
> slow when large Icons such as 128x128 image sizes are being dragged/dropped
> around the screen and that's about the only reason why I run it with the
> Icons based on the Ramdisk.

> Regards.  CJ.

***   Hmm, should not a flashstick be essentially as fast as the RAM 
drive? Forgive me if that sounds like an odd question. I have not yet had
experience with these modules.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/14/2005 1:09:28 AM
>Richard Bonner wrote :
>***   I fall into the latter category, although I have remnants of older
>DOS commands on my systems because they continue to work as I want. In
>particular, I still often use the REPLACE command.

Richard, I'm assuming, probably incorrectly, you're using REPLACE for
Ramdisk content mirroring back to hardisk prior to shutdown?

If so then that would leave any deleted files from the ramdisk session
still existing on the hardisk.

My setup is simply a floppy (as my BIOS doesn't support USB booting)
and USB flashstick (250MB), with 64MB RAM (no hardisk at all). I create a
32MB ramdisk on startup and extract from an archive on the flashstick all
of the files I want on the Ramdisk.  I then TOUCH those files to a very
early date e.g. 1-1-1984 and then XCOPY across any updates from a 'Changes'
sub-dir (recursive sub-dir copy) from the flashstick to the ramdisk.

Prior to shutdown I delete the Changes directories contents and XCOPY
with date option (set later than the touch date of 1-1-1984) all of the
changed/new files from the ramdisk. That way, any deleted files are
mirrored as having been deleted.  The exception being if a deleted file
is one based in the archive (I tend to update the archive reasonably
regularly so as to keep the number of XCopied files down to a lowish
number).

Principally I only have Arachne web-browser, UKA_PPP - news/email transport
and FLY DOS GUI's icon/desktop files on ramdisk, all of the other stuff
such as Quatro spreadsheeting, word processing, pictview, dos-navigator,
Neopaint etc all run fine off the flashstick with TEMP set to the Ramdisk.
FLY also runs reasonably well when fully based on the flashstick, but can
slow when large Icons such as 128x128 image sizes are being dragged/dropped
around the screen and that's about the only reason why I run it with the
Icons based on the Ramdisk.

Regards.  CJ.

0
cml55uk
7/14/2005 5:04:29 AM
Richard Bonner wrote:
> CJ wrote:
>>> Richard Bonner wrote :

> ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? I am
> thinking of getting a USB MM for a laptop I am about to acquire but
> haven't looked into DOS drivers for USB yet.
>
To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS & use
an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.

> ***   Hmm, should not a flashstick be essentially as fast as the RAM
> drive? Forgive me if that sounds like an odd question. I have not yet
> had experience with these modules.

USB memory has to go through the USB interface: USB1.1 has quite a low
throughput.


0
Mike
7/14/2005 4:09:58 PM
Mike Jones wrote:
> Richard Bonner wrote:
> > CJ wrote:
> >>> Richard Bonner wrote :

> > ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? 
> >
> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS & use
> an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.

***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?


> > ***   Hmm, should not a flashstick be essentially as fast as the RAM
> > drive? Forgive me if that sounds like an odd question. I have not yet
> > had experience with these modules.

> USB memory has to go through the USB interface: USB1.1 has quite a low
> throughput.

***   OK, thanks for the info.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/


0
ak621
7/14/2005 11:35:30 PM
I got a used 98se system just recently, I made a boot menu.

One will boot into windows 98
The other will boot into dos

I used that system for games and software that work with xp and
WindowsME

I think windows 98 is more secure that windows xp but that another
thread.

Greg RO



0
GregRo
7/15/2005 2:49:20 AM
Corrected Post

I got a used 98se system just recently, I made a boot menu.

One will boot into windows 98
The other will boot into dos

I used that system for games and software that WONT work with xp and
WindowsME

I think windows 98 is more secure that windows xp but that another
thread.

Greg RO



0
GregRo
7/15/2005 12:51:24 PM
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:04:19 -0500, cml55uk@nsworld.com (CJ) wrote:

>In article <db6ss1$p6a$3@News.Dal.Ca>,
>ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>>Mike Jones wrote:
>>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>>> > CJ wrote:
>>> >>> Richard Bonner wrote :
>>
>>> > ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? 
>>> >
>>> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS & use
>>> an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
>>> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
>>> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.
>>
>>***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?
>>
>>
>
>http://www.cml55uk.12freeukisp.co.uk/index.htm has practically everything
>(well at least all the major applications) that I personally use, FLY DOS
>GUI, personally modified Arachne core, DN, PictView etc. etc.  including
>usbaspi.sys and di1000dd.sys
>
>CJ.


Would fly work with Star Trek the final Unity on windows xp?

Greg Ro


0
GregRo
7/16/2005 12:48:46 AM
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:04:19 -0500, cml55uk@nsworld.com (CJ) wrote:


>>> >>> Richard Bonner wrote :
>>> > ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? 

>>> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS & use
>>> an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
>>> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
>>> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.

>>***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?

>http://www.cml55uk.12freeukisp.co.uk/index.htm has practically everything
>(well at least all the major applications) that I personally use, FLY DOS
>GUI, personally modified Arachne core, DN, PictView etc. etc.  including
>usbaspi.sys and di1000dd.sys

  Great!!  I didn't know it was possible.

  Thanks.
  Geo


0
GEO
7/16/2005 2:08:44 AM
In article <db6ss1$p6a$3@News.Dal.Ca>,
ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>Mike Jones wrote:
>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>> > CJ wrote:
>> >>> Richard Bonner wrote :
>
>> > ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module? 
>> >
>> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS & use
>> an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
>> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
>> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.
>
>***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?
>
>

http://www.cml55uk.12freeukisp.co.uk/index.htm has practically everything
(well at least all the major applications) that I personally use, FLY DOS
GUI, personally modified Arachne core, DN, PictView etc. etc.  including
usbaspi.sys and di1000dd.sys

CJ.

0
cml55uk
7/16/2005 6:04:19 AM
Richard Bonner wrote:
> Mike Jones wrote:
>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>>> CJ wrote:
>>>>> Richard Bonner wrote :
>
>>> ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module?
>>>
>> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS &
>> use an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
>> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
>> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.
>
> ***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?

I don't remember, but I'm feeling generous and have consulted google on your
behalf:
http://www.bluedevstudios.net/files/usbcddos.zip

Some more details on switches here
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10215
>
>
>>> ***   Hmm, should not a flashstick be essentially as fast as the RAM
>>> drive? Forgive me if that sounds like an odd question. I have not
>>> yet had experience with these modules.
>
>> USB memory has to go through the USB interface: USB1.1 has quite a
>> low throughput.
>
> ***   OK, thanks for the info.
>
>          Richard Bonner
> http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/


0
Mike
7/16/2005 12:55:50 PM
Mike Jones wrote:
> Richard Bonner wrote:
>> Mike Jones wrote:
>>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>>>> CJ wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Bonner wrote :
>>
>>>> ***   What drivers are you using to enable the USB memory module?
>>>>
>>> To leap in here, I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS &
>>> use an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load
>>> and DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
>>> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.
>>
>> ***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?
>
> I don't remember, but I'm feeling generous and have consulted google
> on your behalf:
> http://www.bluedevstudios.net/files/usbcddos.zip
>
> Some more details on switches here
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10215
>>
>>
>>>> ***   Hmm, should not a flashstick be essentially as fast as the
>>>> RAM drive? Forgive me if that sounds like an odd question. I have
>>>> not yet had experience with these modules.
>>
>>> USB memory has to go through the USB interface: USB1.1 has quite a
>>> low throughput.
>>
>> ***   OK, thanks for the info.
>>
There seems to interest in other groups too: in comp.os.programmer,
someone's just created a dos usb driver!
http://www.georgpotthast.de/usb/index.html


0
Mike
7/16/2005 1:14:07 PM
Mike Jones wrote:
> Richard Bonner wrote:
> > Mike Jones wrote:
> >> I have an old portable which I (dual) boot to DOS &
> >> use an ASPI driver, USBASPI.sys which takes a few seconds to load and
> >> DI1000DD.sys to allocate a drive letter.
> >> Others have found DUSE.exe to work for them.
> >
> > ***   Do you have some URLs where one might obtain these drivers?

> I don't remember, but I'm feeling generous and have consulted google on your
> behalf:
> http://www.bluedevstudios.net/files/usbcddos.zip

***   Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your research and shall try that URL
and the ones given in a previous post.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
0
ak621
7/21/2005 11:44:47 AM
Reply: