AIN'T NO DOS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pop
  • Start date Start date
Gordon said:
It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
Click to expand...
Did I say it wasn't? Why confuse the newbies with
extraneous junk facts if it isn't relevant to their post, as
most people here do?
Your response even here is typical; it's not relevant to
MY post. But, at least you did NOT say there is no DOS when
MS uses the term all over the place! Newbies need to learn,
not be confused by facts that aren't yet relevant to them!
Pop
 
LOL! Nahh, let 'em vet their own documents! They aren't
wrong, they just took a common sense approach is all.
OK, WHO SAID THAT! MICROSOFT? COMMON SENSE??

Pop

"Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)"
 
inline
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP contains
Click to expand...
Office?!
== Yup, my windowsXP (machine) does indeed include Office
AND is located IN my office!!

The guy
needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid into
Click to expand...
me once calling me

No, I did not lay you. Perish that thought!
names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that Office XP Students
and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!
Click to expand...
You are a very big prude if you cannot repeat those words!
Try it, you'll like it, dark hole!
I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
(http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also
Click to expand...
told someone else
Oh come on, you can too be "arsed".
that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher wouldn't activate on his
new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't know what OEM is
either!
Click to expand...
I don't have XP Pro with publisher, so activating is a moot
point.
The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his IQ tenfold just to be
considered an idiot!
Click to expand...
Umm, so you know the difference, eh? Now, THAT is
interesting! You must be sitting on something interesting
right now.

If ya got nothing good to say, ...
 
Well, Mike, I guess you'll be the second "MVP" I add to my
unable to read or comprehend list, and that's too bad. One
of two of your response were close to excellent, but you're
inconsistant and can't be bothered to read. That explains
why a couple of your responses were so far off base when it
seemed obvious; you weren't really helping, you were being
narcissistic.

That's not to say I disrespect MVP's: It is however to say
that I disrespect you and one other. Any community has
chaff and a wrong side of town, so ... maybe you'll move
someday and find a better neighborhood for your feelings.
The vast majority of MVPs on this board are very real, very
helpful people who know how to act professionally, do their
job to the terms of the MVP agreement (yes, I read it), and
are good at reading comprehension and assimilating input.
You can be proud of your surroundings at least, if not much
else.

I still, and always will, contend that the verbiage and
syntax of the OS should be used in conversing with those too
new to know just which questions to ask about what, and that
the mojority of responders on this and other boards are too
proud of knowing a simple, usually irrelevant fact, which is
used as an excuse or a fill in, but is almost always NOT
relevant to the OP's question/s. I've watched this going on
for a long time and it just keeps getting worse. If your
campaign is to educate on the DOS relationship, feel free,
but when it's NOT relevant to the posed question, switch it
over to an aside, or a BTW. Be sensible and consider the
plight of those who are asking you the questions.

Yeah, I know I' acting like a cop, so make all the
statements you want, but realize that also applies to you.
Plonk me if you wish; it doesn't worry me. Flame if you
wish because it's entertainment. But the REAL way to get me
off your back is to stop the foolishness of showing off
knowledge under the pretense of anwering another's question
and pretending it's important when it isn't, as is usually
the case.

It's pretty sure you either haven't bothered to read this,
or don't understand what it says if you did, so I'll rest my
finners now and say ad'ieu.

Pop

"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
 
Oh my gawd, is that one of those old hypes where Billy says
dos is a thing of the past and spam will be joining it by
the end of 2004? I read wired fairly often, and I don't
beleive I ever said what you wish I'd say about DOS,
because, obviously, if you could comprehend what you read,
you would know I understand the situation.
Do you actually think that newbie reads "DOS" or "MSDOS"
in the Help & Support, and then YOU come along and tell them
there IS NO DOS? Or, when the docs say dos progs will run
in XP, and YOU contradict that? Yes, people DO read the
docs as saying that their dos progs should run under XP.
Now, that link is probably an EXCELLENT way for you to
give a newbie some side-information, IF you present it
properly, AND include a couple of other relevant links so
that the poster can get the correct idea?

start;
"I have a DOS game; will it run in XP?"
"Thre is no DOS in XP"
end;

That's the kind of posts this place is loaded with! And you
are helping to pertetuate that! It's incomplete,
irrelevant, and silly. And, in several cases, narcissistic.
Yes, I like that word; it's applicable, and you seem to be
sliding into it nicely.

Have fun Mike; sorry if you are Peter(ing principle) out!

Pop


"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
 
If you have a complaint about me, I suggest you take it up with Microsoft or
my MVP group leader, Brian Boston.
 
Tom said:
LOL, computers didn't just revolve around MS based OSes ya know!
Click to expand...

No, but every computer with a disk drive of any type runs DOS, it's NOT
a Microsoft term.
 
You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like that...

Anyway...

Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP does contain DOS

A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct, and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could POSSIBLY run your game.
 
message
You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
Click to expand...
take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
that....
Anyway....

Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
Click to expand...
WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
does contain DOS.
A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
Click to expand...
and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
POSSIBLY run your game.

Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
than caring or useful people.

I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
xp". as happend over and over.
I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
Good riddance either way.

Regards,

Pop
 
No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate you. We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you for the wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows either. As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, Posix, and OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - not in Dos). However NT has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also conclude that there is no Windows either.
 
On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly acceptable, I suppose I
could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS environment but
there is a DOS emulator.

The problem is context, in that users are asking specifically if they can do
something that is either no longer supported or can't be done because if
they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to see their files if
they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even more confusion. I
could just stop referencing DOS altogether in my responses on this type of
issue and simply provide the user with instructions on what to do, ignoring
their DOS reference altogether. But that doesn't really speak to the issue
either and I know, if we don't mention it in response to a question in which
it was referenced, at least some will come back with the question "Why can't
I do it in DOS," which for anybody listening, is a reference to MS-DOS!:-)

Your points nonetheless, are well taken. But, maybe we, you and I, aren't
so far apart in that, aren't you really talking about Code versus
environment? Since many of the commands would go unrecognized and users
would only end up more frustrated. "Well, why doesn't it work, you said it
was there!" I'm sure you see my point. It ain't your granddaddy's MS-DOS,
it's changed and morphed and is something quite different even if there is
an emulator and even if we say MS-DOS is a building block of Windows.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate you.
We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you for the
wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows either.
As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, Posix, and
OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - not in Dos).
However NT has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode
programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also
conclude that there is no Windows either.
 
Generally speaking the answer "there is no dos" is frequently given to people trying to run Dos apps. Most dos apps written towards the end of Dos's lifetime won't run, due to insufficient memory, without configuration. However they wouldn't have run on a real Dos machine either without configuration.

There are other configuration issues as well. All would have needed to be addressed on Dos. XP's Dos, designed to run Line Of Business apps, gives tons of memory to networking (and other typical corporate requirements). Home user programs typically didn't use networking but did require the memory that networking took. The program's manual will nearly always say what to do to configure the program.

Any Dos program written to the Dos API will work. Nearly all common departures from the API including direct hardware access will work. With the addition of a vxd any dos program can access hardware (really access it). MS provide vxds (built in) for common hardware such as keyboards, mouses, serial ports, and printer ports. If the program switches to a video mode that XP doesn't support it makes the program full screen (thus allowing it direct access to the hardware), if it support it it emulates the hardware.

Except for protected mode memory managers (and some are supported) and programs using sound cards nearly any non disk utility should work or be configured to work (which configuration would have been needed in a dos environment anyway).

I know that some questions are "how do I boot to dos". But many aren't that get the answer "there is no dos".
 
LOL! THAT'S humiliating me? Your reading comprehension is
as as dismal as your retort-ability and your wishes for
others to commit suicide! At least you've let off a little
on the f word, you little f'er, but you still make a great
case against yourself; that ability stays with you at least.
BTW, if you have the experience you claim to have, then
you should know that these posts aren't going to humiliate,
embarass or otherwise discomfort me, nor should you be
feeling the anger you are feeling. Good advice for any ng,
let alone this one.
I think I can pretty precisely see why you didnt' make
it as an active MVP ng poster. Are you aware of what O.D.D.
is?

Enjoy,

Pop


No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to
humilate you. We just happen to be on the same side in this
issue. Although you for the wrong reasons and me for the
right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have
Windows either. As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed
in to NT, Windows, Posix, and OS/2 (which is where Dos
programs were excuted by default - not in Dos). However NT
has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode
programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one
must also conclude that there is no Windows either.
 
Mike,
Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
explain, although in principle it's relatively simple, and
easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear to
me to be clear and concise. Good work.

Regards,

Pop


"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly acceptable, I suppose I
could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS environment but
there is a DOS emulator.

The problem is context, in that users are asking specifically if they can do
something that is either no longer supported or can't be done because if
they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to see their files if
they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
Click to expand...
more
....
<snip>
 
Oh, man, David, why don't you go back to bed? You need a
good, long rest!

Generally speaking the answer "there is no dos" is
frequently given to people trying to run Dos apps. Most dos
apps written towards the end of Dos's lifetime won't run,
== My physican experience stonglhy refutes that.

due to insufficient memory,
== Of the many DOS apps I still do run, and a bunch of
games for the foster kids, I have seen exactly THREE of
approximately 1,000 DOS apps that won't run (it's the 1,000
games CD dummy, don't argue with me about numbers).

without configuration.
== All three of the ones with memory related errors were
"fixed" by using compatability mode. I guess the actual
figure of runnable dos apps might be about 1, 061 at a quick
estimate by glancing at directory contents, and not counting
a bunch of libraries, etc..

However they wouldn't have run on a real Dos machine either
without configuration.
== ?? That's silly and conficts common sense AND your own
statements. Misspeak maybe?
"dos apps written towards the end of Dos's lifetime won't
run" is patently untrue UNLESS you limit your experience to
crap you or others like you tried to compile. They work
fine all the way up through 6, 95, and 98.

There are other configuration issues as well. All would have
needed to be addressed on Dos.
== Yup, and most coded writers handled them very well and
with lightning speed compared to writing the gui spaghetti
it sounds like you are used to. BTW, I'ts DOS or D.O.S. or
dos, or ... but not Dos. You shouldn't use autotexts to
write emails.

XP's Dos, designed to run Line Of Business apps, gives tons
of
== Gasp!! XP's "Dos"?? What Dos?

<irrelevant crap snipped>

I know that some questions are "how do I boot to dos". But
many aren't that get the answer "there is no dos".
=== And, that means?

....
Pop
 
Back
Top