| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 38549 | 2003-10-10 20:52:00 | Dos OS | Martina (4232) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 182097 | 2003-10-10 20:52:00 | I know, or I think I know, that Win.XP does not have a Dos but which of the Win versions do please | Martina (4232) | ||
| 182098 | 2003-10-10 21:01:00 | Hi Martina Win 95 & Win 98 (all versions) are underpinned by DOS, but Win 2000 and Win XP do have a command prompt that supplies some features recognisably DOS in their command syntax and function. What aspects of DOS are you interested in or need? Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 182099 | 2003-10-10 21:03:00 | All of the Windows 3.x and 9x series have underlying DOS. Windows 2000, NT, XP and ME do not have true DOS, only a DOS emulator under Windows |
godfather (25) | ||
| 182100 | 2003-10-10 21:13:00 | godfather your slipping! ME has dos, its just been hidden a little bit. | tweak'e (174) | ||
| 182101 | 2003-10-10 21:14:00 | XP has a very good Dos emulator in it, but not true Dos. I run 'Proffesional File' Data Base 1994, & Neopaint 1994 The 'Proffessional File' works better in XP than it does in Dos, better printer support. The only thing to do is try it, you may be surprised. You need to use a shortcut on your Desktop, as it will set up the correct emulation when you create the shortcut. If your XP will not support Dos, go to the 'system32' folder & see if the files 'autoexec.nt' & 'config.nt' are there. If they are not, there are spare ones in the 'repair' folder. Copy them to 'system32' |
Mzee (158) | ||
| 182102 | 2003-10-10 21:29:00 | > godfather your slipping! ME has dos, its just been > hidden a little bit. True, but unless you patch it to allow real mode DOS its hidden, as you say. Not everyone is a geek to understand these things, so I try to err on the side of caution. Thats my story anyway :) |
godfather (25) | ||
| 182103 | 2003-10-11 07:55:00 | Thank you all for replying. Because I'm a real newbie I have been doing a lot of reading and the subject of Dos kept creeping in so I thought I should learn a bit more. I've never run in (or is it under) Dos and I've a lot to learn about XP yet so maybe I'll put Dos on the back burner for a while. Thanks again M... |
Martina (4232) | ||
| 182104 | 2003-10-11 08:09:00 | This is a personal thing, but I would tend not to put off learning DOS to long. The reason I say this is, even though a lot of OS's are not native DOS, learning DOS does give you a understanding of what the OS is up to when you for example copy or delete file. Then theres batch files, yes I know Microsoft encourging the use of script files as a replacement to batch files, but Im old school. :D ;) |
beama (111) | ||
| 182105 | 2003-10-11 08:57:00 | For example I am running a program written for DOS in 1997 under WinXP Pro. Batch files I created still run quite happily as well. You can always right click an *.exe file and get it to run in compatability mode for Win95 or Win98. Any particular program you have in mind? |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 182106 | 2003-10-11 21:35:00 | Thanks Beama & Elelphant - your comments are noted. I don't have any particular program in mind, my query was just a "general" one. A friend has offered me the use of an elderly pc which he says runs "pure Dos" and he has secured a copy of Ver 6.22 for me to try. He says "everything" is dated 1994 or earlier which means it's a zillion years old in pc terms. I don't know if experience on that setup will help me understand XP but am looking forward to having a go. Thanks again everyone M.. |
Martina (4232) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||