Re: [SLE] Re:Upgrading MS Windows on a Dual Booting Machine
On Monday 19 January 2004 16:53, James Knott wrote:
Boy has it ever been a long time since you checked..... ;-) It hasn't been that way since 1998.
Forgot to include 95 & 98 in that. I wasn't referring to NT, 2000 or XP.
98 does not have DOS underneith. It just emulates dos with a 98 version of command.com that close inspection of reveals quite a different structure, while still supporting most but not all of the features of Dos 6.2. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
98 does not have DOS underneith. It just emulates dos with a 98 version of command.com that close inspection of reveals quite a different structure, while still supporting most but not all of the features of Dos 6.2.
What you're describing is WinME, not 98 or 98SE, both of which use MS-DOS 7.1. 98 can boot directly to a plain old DOS prompt, and run all DOS software just the same as pre-v7.0 versions of MS-DOS. -- "The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power." General Douglas MacArthur Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
On Monday 19 January 2004 23:08, Felix Miata wrote:
What you're describing is WinME, not 98 or 98SE, both of which use MS-DOS 7.1. 98 can boot directly to a plain old DOS prompt, and run all DOS software just the same as pre-v7.0 versions of MS-DOS.
Nope I'm describing win98se, which when you run command.com reports itself as Windows 98. Try it. Further, its questionable whether MS ever officially released anything described as Dos 7.1. They certainly claim that Win98 does not have DOS underneath. And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt. Its a windows prompt. And the size of the module (command.com) and its content is quite different from any dos command.com. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:43 am, John Andersen wrote:
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt.
guess again, junior -- try this:
go to the root directory of your boot disk
attrib -r -h -s msdos.sys
edit msdos.sys
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 19:39, Tom Emerson wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:43 am, John Andersen wrote:
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt.
guess again, junior -- try this:
go to the root directory of your boot disk attrib -r -h -s msdos.sys edit msdos.sys
Microsoft tries REALLY hard to hide the fact that "windows" is nothing more than KDE, gnome, or even Presentation Manager -- even though these are the programs that "manage the user's interaction via a graphical environment", we don't call them "linux" or "OS/2", now do we? [ok, maybe a few OS/2 zealots refer to PM as OS/2, but only those that are "still recent converts" from the windows world ;) ]
Tom
p.s. -- totally off the beaten track here, but for real fun and giggles, try this: [note: needs a computer where you can totally wipe out C:]
boot a system using a win98 boot floppy -- note that there is no "splash" screen [note also that you are at a "true dos prompt"] format a hard drive with the "/s" parameter to make it a bootable system disk boot from the hard disk -- explain where the "splash" screen came from since it wasn't on the boot floppy... It was on there but the folks at MS decided not to make you wait for it to load from floppy (from a hard disk thats another story)
-- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 19:39, Tom Emerson wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:43 am, John Andersen wrote:
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt.
guess again, junior -- try this:
go to the root directory of your boot disk attrib -r -h -s msdos.sys edit msdos.sys
Microsoft tries REALLY hard to hide the fact that "windows" is nothing more than KDE, gnome, or even Presentation Manager -- even though these are the programs that "manage the user's interaction via a graphical environment", we don't call them "linux" or "OS/2", now do we? [ok, maybe a few OS/2 zealots refer to PM as OS/2, but only those that are "still recent converts" from the windows world ;) ]
Tom
p.s. -- totally off the beaten track here, but for real fun and giggles, try this: [note: needs a computer where you can totally wipe out C:]
boot a system using a win98 boot floppy -- note that there is no "splash" screen [note also that you are at a "true dos prompt"] format a hard drive with the "/s" parameter to make it a bootable system disk boot from the hard disk -- explain where the "splash" screen came from since it wasn't on the boot floppy... It was on there but the folks at MS decided not to make you wait for it to load from floppy (from a hard disk thats another story)
-- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -- Ken Schneider unix user since 1989
The OT in the subject says it all, take this to the OT mail list please. On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 07:17, David Alan Blomberg wrote: linux user since 1994 SuSE user since 1998 (5.2)
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:02 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
The OT in the subject says it all, take this to the OT mail list please.
I disagree, it is not about guns or Iraq or America or Europe, so it would be more OT on the OT list. The good people of the OT list should not be burdened with this. Like it or not, many people on the list are running Linux in co-existence with other OS from M$, and that is a frequent topic. So I find the stuff below to be relevant material for understanding the nature of Windows and sufficiently O[n] T[opic] to welcome it. Vince
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 07:17, David Alan Blomberg wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 19:39, Tom Emerson wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:43 am, John Andersen wrote:
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt.
guess again, junior -- try this:
go to the root directory of your boot disk attrib -r -h -s msdos.sys edit msdos.sys
Microsoft tries REALLY hard to hide the fact that "windows" is nothing more than KDE, gnome, or even Presentation Manager -- even though these are the programs that "manage the user's interaction via a graphical environment", we don't call them "linux" or "OS/2", now do we? [ok, maybe a few OS/2 zealots refer to PM as OS/2, but only those that are "still recent converts" from the windows world ;) ]
Tom
p.s. -- totally off the beaten track here, but for real fun and giggles, try this: [note: needs a computer where you can totally wipe out C:]
boot a system using a win98 boot floppy -- note that there is no "splash" screen [note also that you are at a "true dos prompt"] format a hard drive with the "/s" parameter to make it a bootable system disk boot from the hard disk -- explain where the "splash" screen came from since it wasn't on the boot floppy...
It was on there but the folks at MS decided not to make you wait for it to load from floppy (from a hard disk thats another story)
-- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net
-- Ken Schneider unix user since 1989 linux user since 1994 SuSE user since 1998 (5.2)
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 12:00 pm, Vince Littler wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:02 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
The OT in the subject says it all, take this to the OT mail list please.
I disagree, it is not about guns or Iraq or America or Europe, so it would be more OT on the OT list. The good people of the OT list should not be burdened with this.
Like it or not, many people on the list are running Linux in co-existence with other OS from M$, and that is a frequent topic. So I find the stuff below to be relevant material for understanding the nature of Windows and sufficiently O[n] T[opic] to welcome it.
I half agree. As long as the discussion on how other OS'S interact with Linux (and even compare with it) remains technical, it's interesting. Once it becomes dominated by slams on Microsoft (which I generally agree with, by the way), it's not interesting. Actually, I'm curious as to what the state of OS/2 is these days. I used to be an OS/2 enthusiast, but when support for ordinary users died, I gave up on it. At one time I had a machine that multibooted to either Linux, OS/2, or Windows. My impression is that there's still a core of OS/2 users like big banks who pay big bucks to IBM for support, but the system is completely stagnant and not supported otherwise. Paul Abrahams
Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Actually, I'm curious as to what the state of OS/2 is these days.
And, although I too am interested in the state of OS/2, here is not the place to discuss it. -- Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 12:00 pm, Vince Littler wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 1:02 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
The OT in the subject says it all, take this to the OT mail list please.
I disagree, it is not about guns or Iraq or America or Europe, so it would
be
more OT on the OT list. The good people of the OT list should not be
burdened
with this.
Like it or not, many people on the list are running Linux in co-existence
with
other OS from M$, and that is a frequent topic. So I find the stuff below to be relevant material for understanding the nature of Windows and
sufficiently
O[n] T[opic] to welcome it.
I half agree. As long as the discussion on how other OS'S interact with Linux (and even compare with it) remains technical, it's interesting. Once it becomes dominated by slams on Microsoft (which I generally agree with, by the way), it's not interesting.
Actually, I'm curious as to what the state of OS/2 is these days. I used to be an OS/2 enthusiast, but when support for ordinary users died, I gave up on it. At one time I had a machine that multibooted to either Linux, OS/2, or Windows. My impression is that there's still a core of OS/2 users like big banks who pay big bucks to IBM for support, but the system is completely stagnant and not supported otherwise.
As I understand it, it's still sold and supported for the big users. Individuals get to buy the rebranded eComm Station.
John Andersen wrote:
Further, its questionable whether MS ever officially released anything described as Dos 7.1. They certainly claim that Win98 does not have DOS underneath.
That's the marketing department, not the technical or support departments: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win9x/msdos... http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/dnarvbtips/...
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt. Its a windows prompt. And the size of the module (command.com) and its content is quite different from any dos command.com.
C:\>vers 007.010 C:\> C:\>ver /r Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222] Revision A DOS is in HMA C:\> A:\>vers 008.000 A:\> A:\>ver /r Windows Millennium [Version 4.90.3000] Revision A DOS is in HMA A:\> -- "The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power." General Douglas MacArthur Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2004 23:08, Felix Miata wrote:
What you're describing is WinME, not 98 or 98SE, both of which use MS-DOS 7.1. 98 can boot directly to a plain old DOS prompt, and run all DOS software just the same as pre-v7.0 versions of MS-DOS.
Nope I'm describing win98se, which when you run command.com reports itself as Windows 98. Try it.
Further, its questionable whether MS ever officially released anything described as Dos 7.1. They certainly claim that Win98 does not have DOS underneath.
And 98 can not boot to a dos prompt. Its a windows prompt. And the size of the module (command.com) and its content is quite different from any dos command.com.
Actually, you can boot into DOS. Peter Norton's "Maximizing Windows 98 Administration" describes how to do it.
Felix Miata wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
98 does not have DOS underneith. It just emulates dos with a 98 version of command.com that close inspection of reveals quite a different structure, while still supporting most but not all of the features of Dos 6.2.
What you're describing is WinME, not 98 or 98SE, both of which use MS-DOS 7.1. 98 can boot directly to a plain old DOS prompt, and run all DOS software just the same as pre-v7.0 versions of MS-DOS.
Can we now lose the windows discussion? -- Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2004 16:53, James Knott wrote:
Boy has it ever been a long time since you checked..... ;-) It hasn't been that way since 1998.
Forgot to include 95 & 98 in that. I wasn't referring to NT, 2000 or XP.
98 does not have DOS underneith. It just emulates dos with a 98 version of command.com that close inspection of reveals quite a different structure, while still supporting most but not all of the features of Dos 6.2.
Are you certain of that? I thought both W95 & W98 were based on DOS.
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 13:21, James Knott wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2004 16:53, James Knott wrote:
Boy has it ever been a long time since you checked..... ;-) It hasn't been that way since 1998.
Forgot to include 95 & 98 in that. I wasn't referring to NT, 2000 or XP.
98 does not have DOS underneith. It just emulates dos with a 98 version of command.com that close inspection of reveals quite a different structure, while still supporting most but not all of the features of Dos 6.2.
Are you certain of that? I thought both W95 & W98 were based on DOS.
Win95 maybe, but win98 is a 32bit system and dos is still only 16. But you can find a win98 machine and try it yourself by clicking start / run / enter command.com and see what it says. Then rename command.com (c:\windows\command direcectory) and reboot and you note it will still work. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
OK, last shot at explaining that "there really is a PURE DOS" for win98, and I'll even keep it more-or-less "on topic for linux" by pointing out an unlikely parallel -- read on... On Tuesday 20 January 2004 9:46 pm, John Andersen wrote: [lots of back-and-forth about whether "win98 runs 'on top' of DOS or not" snipped]
Win95 maybe, but win98 is a 32bit system and dos is still only 16. But you can find a win98 machine and try it yourself by clicking start / run / enter command.com and see what it says.
at which point, "it's too late -- you've already LOADED win.com" (and despite all of the bad press Microsoft has received over "windows crashing", "win.com" doesn't crash -- it can't -- you can NEVER leave it...;) ) If you peruse other parts of this thread, you'll see my notes on how to boot "pure" DOS and really stay there, not the pseudo-dos that gets invoked by "start/ run" or even "boot to dos" in the exit menu. One of the tell-tale indicators that you really are in "pure DOS" is that there is NO "long filename support". The boot-to-dos/run command.com from start DOES have long filename support, which is an indication that you've never left windows [kind of like when Xavier and Scott return to the mansion in X-men 2, but I digress...]
Then rename command.com (c:\windows\command direcectory) and reboot and you note it will still work.
ummm... wrong "command.com" -- you would want the command.com found in the ROOT directory [i.e., as if it were on a floppy, hint hint...] Now, I promised to make a linux reference that might help explain things, and here it is: LOADLIN.EXE That's right -- to a degree, all the arguments about win98 and "DOS" can be applied to Linux if you stop and think/realize that the boot procedure of: boot DOS, run WIN.COM, do "windows" things never to return to "pure" DOS is exactly the same as boot DOS, run LOADLIN.EXE, do "linux/unix" things never to return to DOS HOWEVER, under "linux", you do NOT have access to "honest to goodness DOS calls" which DO exist under windows [because you never really "left" dos, you only loaded a non-exitable-shell on top of it] Running "loadlin", however, totally replaces "DOS" with linux [ok, I can here it now: the claim will be made that running win.com "totally replaces DOS", but back up to the point where I pointed out you can still make "real DOS calls..."] And for an even more obscure reference, consider the Novell program SERVER.EXE, what do you think THAT is ? [one major difference, you can actually exit SERVER.EXE and return to DOS, or, at least, you USED to be able to do that -- it's been a LONG while since I took Novell classes, but now that they bought SuSE, maybe I should be brushing up on it... ;) ] -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net
participants (9)
-
David Alan Blomberg -
Felix Miata -
Geoffrey -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
Kenneth Schneider -
Paul W. Abrahams -
Tom Emerson -
Vince Littler