Is Winxp independant of Dos?

Discussion in 'Microsoft Certification' started by =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. 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
    =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=, Apr 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    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)
    J. Clarke, Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
    Gorm Braarvig, Apr 2, 2006
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    TBone Guest

    And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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
    TBone, Apr 3, 2006
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    TBone wrote:

    > And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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)
    J. Clarke, Apr 3, 2006
    #5
  6. >> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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?
    Gorm Braarvig, Apr 4, 2006
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    Gorm Braarvig wrote:

    >>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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)
    J. Clarke, Apr 4, 2006
    #7
  8. >>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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.
    Gorm Braarvig, Apr 4, 2006
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    Gorm Braarvig wrote:

    >>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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)
    J. Clarke, Apr 4, 2006
    #9
  10. >>>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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.
    Gorm Braarvig, Apr 5, 2006
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?VGF0dA==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    Gorm Braarvig wrote:

    >>>>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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.


    XP is customizable. All you have to do is shell out for a source license.
    Back when NT was new it was something like 65K, not sure what it is now,
    but they're available.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Apr 8, 2006
    #11
  12. >>>>>>>> And on the eigth day "Gorm Braarvig" <> 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.

    >
    > XP is customizable. All you have to do is shell out for a source license.
    > Back when NT was new it was something like 65K, not sure what it is now,
    > but they're available.
    >


    Starting at
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/windowsxpembedded/default.aspx you should
    be able to download this tool you can create your own xp-versions in. Last
    time I heard the story it went something like:
    - the tool to create custom component-based XP-versions is free
    - you can create free 120-day evaluation versions of custom XP
    - you need to pay around $100-150 if you want a custom XP to use

    Haven't tried it myself. Hope I get the time.
    Gorm Braarvig, Apr 9, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgQnV4dG9u?=

    independant access point

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgQnV4dG9u?=, Dec 7, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
  2. Don
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,998
    °Mike°
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. Igor Mamuziæ

    IOS DoS defense causes DoS to itself:)

    Igor Mamuziæ, May 12, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    504
    Igor Mamuzic
    May 20, 2006
  4. Homer J. Simpson

    Rotate the display, independant of the video card driver?

    Homer J. Simpson, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    380
    Homer J. Simpson
    Dec 31, 2007
  5. Arthur

    OT test of independant NNTP

    Arthur, Apr 29, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    263
    MarkH
    Apr 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page