Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Microsoft Certification (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f24-microsoft-certification.html)
-   -   Is Winxp independant of Dos? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t57550-is-winxp-independant-of-dos.html)

=?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?= 04-02-2006 04:18 AM

Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
I would be very greatful if any 1 could tell me if windowsXp needs to have
Dos to function. A work mate told me that WinXp dose not have dos, but i am
confused because i have Xp home and use dos command ipconfig when
troubleshooting my network.
--
Tatt

J. Clarke 04-02-2006 02:09 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
Tatt wrote:

> I would be very greatful if any 1 could tell me if windowsXp needs to have
> Dos to function. A work mate told me that WinXp dose not have dos, but i
> am confused because i have Xp home and use dos command ipconfig when
> troubleshooting my network.


XP has a command interpreter from which some MS-DOS programs can be run.
That command interpreter is not MS-DOS despite being engineered to have the
same "look and feel".

Further, ipconfig is an XP command, not DOS. Try it on a DOS system and you
get "bad command or file name".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gorm Braarvig 04-02-2006 06:30 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
No, it is in the Windows NT family.
Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.
Windows Vista, 2003, XP, 2000, NT4, NT 3.51 are totally different.

"Tatt" <malcolmtattersall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:269C0542-989A-4FDD-9518-A9302450C36A@microsoft.com...
>I would be very greatful if any 1 could tell me if windowsXp needs to have
> Dos to function. A work mate told me that WinXp dose not have dos, but i
> am
> confused because i have Xp home and use dos command ipconfig when
> troubleshooting my network.
> --
> Tatt




TBone 04-03-2006 06:56 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause the
electrons to come together and form the following words:

> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.


Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0. Thus its
not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files for backwards
compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses people.

--
T-Bone
MCNGP XL

J. Clarke 04-03-2006 08:14 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
TBone wrote:

> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause the
> electrons to come together and form the following words:
>
>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.

>
> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0. Thus
> its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files for
> backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses people.


Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if it
encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't do
that.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gorm Braarvig 04-04-2006 07:49 AM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause the
>> electrons to come together and form the following words:
>>
>>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.

>>
>> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0. Thus
>> its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files for
>> backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses people.


So, if I'm not going technical and describing it as compact and easy as
possible:
"Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS"

> Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if it
> encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
> driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't do
> that.


INT10h should be possible, but INT21h is unlikely for 95+, no?



J. Clarke 04-04-2006 10:17 AM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
Gorm Braarvig wrote:

>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause the
>>> electrons to come together and form the following words:
>>>
>>>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>>>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.
>>>
>>> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0. Thus
>>> its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files for
>>> backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses people.

>
> So, if I'm not going technical and describing it as compact and easy as
> possible:
> "Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS"
>
>> Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if it
>> encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
>> driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't do
>> that.

>
> INT10h should be possible, but INT21h is unlikely for 95+, no?


You might want to take a look at <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q143281/>,
which down toward the bottom has a brief discussion of int21h and Windows
95. Basically if a driver hooks into the int21h chain then Windows 9x
drops back to DOS compatibility mode on disk access with a resulting
performance penalty.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gorm Braarvig 04-04-2006 12:10 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause the
>>>> electrons to come together and form the following words:
>>>>
>>>>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>>>>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.
>>>>
>>>> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0. Thus
>>>> its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files for
>>>> backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses people.

>>
>> So, if I'm not going technical and describing it as compact and easy as
>> possible:
>> "Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS"
>>
>>> Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if it
>>> encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
>>> driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't do
>>> that.

>>
>> INT10h should be possible, but INT21h is unlikely for 95+, no?

>
> You might want to take a look at
> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q143281/>,
> which down toward the bottom has a brief discussion of int21h and Windows
> 95. Basically if a driver hooks into the int21h chain then Windows 9x
> drops back to DOS compatibility mode on disk access with a resulting
> performance penalty.


Yeah, it was 13h that was BIOS disk access, not 10h. It has been a long long
time.
I never installed Windows 95. I didn't believe in it. I thought enough was
enough with 3.1 and switched to NT. Good choice. I almost switched to
Windows CE when it came, that would not have been a good choice.



J. Clarke 04-04-2006 08:56 PM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
Gorm Braarvig wrote:

>>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause
>>>>> the electrons to come together and form the following words:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>>>>>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0.
>>>>> Thus its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config files
>>>>> for backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses
>>>>> people.
>>>
>>> So, if I'm not going technical and describing it as compact and easy as
>>> possible:
>>> "Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS"
>>>
>>>> Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if it
>>>> encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
>>>> driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't do
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> INT10h should be possible, but INT21h is unlikely for 95+, no?

>>
>> You might want to take a look at
>> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q143281/>,
>> which down toward the bottom has a brief discussion of int21h and Windows
>> 95. Basically if a driver hooks into the int21h chain then Windows 9x
>> drops back to DOS compatibility mode on disk access with a resulting
>> performance penalty.

>
> Yeah, it was 13h that was BIOS disk access, not 10h. It has been a long
> long time.
> I never installed Windows 95. I didn't believe in it. I thought enough was
> enough with 3.1 and switched to NT. Good choice. I almost switched to
> Windows CE when it came, that would not have been a good choice.


Been difficult anyway, it never ran on x86 as far as I know--it was always
intended to be an embedded OS.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gorm Braarvig 04-05-2006 08:27 AM

Re: Is Winxp independant of Dos?
 
>>>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <gorm_b@hotmail.com> did cause
>>>>>> the electrons to come together and form the following words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is in the Windows NT family.
>>>>>>> Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ooh, so close. The win9x family runs an isolated kernel in ring 0.
>>>>>> Thus its not "on top of" DOS. It still allow autoexec and config
>>>>>> files
>>>>>> for backwards compatibility reasons and that sometimes confuses
>>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> So, if I'm not going technical and describing it as compact and easy as
>>>> possible:
>>>> "Windows ME, 98, 95, 3.1... are built on (or ran from) DOS"
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it still uses DOS to provide some services--for example if
>>>>> it
>>>>> encounters a disk controller for which it doesn't have a purpose-made
>>>>> driver it can still access the disk via the 16-bit BIOS. XP doesn't
>>>>> do
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> INT10h should be possible, but INT21h is unlikely for 95+, no?
>>>
>>> You might want to take a look at
>>> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q143281/>,
>>> which down toward the bottom has a brief discussion of int21h and
>>> Windows
>>> 95. Basically if a driver hooks into the int21h chain then Windows 9x
>>> drops back to DOS compatibility mode on disk access with a resulting
>>> performance penalty.

>>
>> Yeah, it was 13h that was BIOS disk access, not 10h. It has been a long
>> long time.
>> I never installed Windows 95. I didn't believe in it. I thought enough
>> was
>> enough with 3.1 and switched to NT. Good choice. I almost switched to
>> Windows CE when it came, that would not have been a good choice.

>
> Been difficult anyway, it never ran on x86 as far as I know--it was always
> intended to be an embedded OS.


for embedded, yes, but it came for x86 and was customizable. I was hoping to
run it on my desktop (around version 2 I think...) , so that I could
customize the OS. Now we have XP embedded for that use, anyway, I lost
interest in custom Windows OS a while ago.




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.