Running DOS programs from XP Home

[Mat]

If i upgrade to XP home. Cn i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible? & will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

Any help gratefully received

Mat

 

[Rob Schneider]

If i upgrade to XP home. Cn i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible? & will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

Any help gratefully received

Mat

XP includes a "command prompt" which looks like a DOS box. It is not
the same as their previous products called DOS.

Some functionality that existed in previous versions of Windows which
were more closely tied to DOS has been removed with the removal of large
parts of DOS from Windows. I don't know (or want to know) details. I
do know that some problems are not resolvable. XP is not an operating
system to move to if compatibility with older DOS programs is essential.

There also is a "Program Compatibility Wizard" which will help you make
any setting changes. I like it to how PIF files used to be in previous
versions of Windows.

Contact the developers of these DOS programs for advice, if possible.

If DOS compatibility important and MUST work ... tread carefully.

 

[purplehaz]

There is no DOS in XP so they might work, they might not. Many will run fine
from the dos like command prompt or in win95/98 emulation mode. The only way
to know for sure is try it or post the programs maybe some here has tried
them. Also you could always setup a dual boot between XP and dos and then
they will work just fine.

 

[Tim Slattery]

If i upgrade to XP home. Can i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible? & will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

You can open a console window. That's a 32-bit command-line
environment - much like the DOS box in Win9x. It will run 32-bit
console programs and almost all 16-bit real-mode DOS programs. Any
program that tries to bypass the OS and directly manipulate the
hardware (like some games that write directly to the video array to
speed things up) will not work.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

If i upgrade to XP home. Cn i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible? & will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

You can get a cmd or command window, which looks like DOS but isn't (DOS
is being emulated). Whether the program works depends on what it does ..
programs which thought they had the right to go twiddle directly with
the hardware control registers (mouse, graphics card, joystick,
whatever) will get roundly slapped down by WinXP, and won't function.
Most 'well behaved' DOS programs which only interacted via BIOS calls or
software interrupts will work just fine.

 

[PaulC]

Windows XP is Microsoft's first true operating system. In all the other
versions, DOS was the operating system, and Windows was just the graphical
user interface, or GUI. Now that Windows XP itself controls the hardware,
there is no need for DOS anymore. There is a command line interface, but it
may, or may not run DOS programs, it depends on the program itself.

 

[purplehaz]

First DOS *is* an operating system.
Second, the migration away from dos started with windows NT/2k, not XP.

Windows XP is Microsoft's first true operating system. In all the other
versions, DOS was the operating system, and Windows was just the graphical
user interface, or GUI. Now that Windows XP itself controls the hardware,
there is no need for DOS anymore. There is a command line interface, but it
may, or may not run DOS programs, it depends on the program itself.

 

[Ken Blake]

If i upgrade to XP home. Cn i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible?

It's possible, but it's also possible that they won't work. Many,
but not all, DOS programs work fine under XP.

Which ones do you want to run?

& will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

There is no DOS prompt to get to. However, Windows XP includes a
coomand prompt, which emulates DOS. You can do *most* (but not
all) of the things you used to be able to do at a DOS prompt.

 

[PaulC]

Well, I'll have to trust you on the "NT not built on DOS" point, I'm not
sure if that is true or not.
According to videos we watched in computer class (which used information
directly from Microsoft), a true operating system must control the hardware.
Earlier versions of the Windows (excluding NT), *did not* by themselves,
control the hardware, they simply provided a user interface for DOS to do
it. Therefore, Windows 95, 98, and ME, (and maybe 2K, because I could have
sworn that they used DOS, but I'm not sure), were not, technically, true
operating systems, just GUIs. This came from my mouths of retired
Microsoft programmers, not mine, just in case you don't believe me. But I
appreciate your replies, and hope to hear more.

Windows XP is Microsoft's first true operating system. In all the other
versions, DOS was the operating system, and Windows was just the graphical
user interface, or GUI. Now that Windows XP itself controls the hardware,
there is no need for DOS anymore. There is a command line interface, but it
may, or may not run DOS programs, it depends on the program itself.

 

[Alex Nichol]

If i upgrade to XP home. Cn i still run run some old DOS
programs, is this still possible? & will i be able to get
to the DOS prompt?

There is no 'true' 16 bit DOS, but there is an emulated DOS environment
in which well-behaved DOS programs will run. Basically they must not
require any drivers/TSRs loaded through config.sys or autoexec.bat, and
must not try to go 'under the system' to handle the hardware direct.
You can get an emulated command environment to run DOS like commands
with some modifications at Start - All Programs - Accessories - Command
Prompt, or can run a true DOS 5.0 command.com - but then there is no
support for long file names and so on.

The only way to run a real mode DOS is by a separate boot to say a Win98
startup floppy

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Well, I'll have to trust you on the "NT not built on DOS" point, I'm not
sure if that is true or not.
According to videos we watched in computer class (which used information
directly from Microsoft), a true operating system must control the hardware.
Earlier versions of the Windows (excluding NT), *did not* by themselves,
control the hardware, they simply provided a user interface for DOS to do
it.

We need a definition of 'what hardware', at some point. Most (~99%) of
the hardware in your PC is actually controlled by drivers, which are
scheduled by the OS Kernel in response to program requests, or hardware
interrupts. We could argue for days over whether these drivers are part
of the OS or not, but you won't get much disk reading done without one.
T'was ever thus, although drivers are written to a different design
scheme these days (see 'WDM').

The OS kernel itself has control over various critical bits of the CPU
hardware (starting from the point at which NTLDR kicks the CPU into
protected mode), most of which it interfaces with via the appropriate
HAL.dll.

Win 3.1, and even 9x. were definitely GUIs built on top of DOS. WinNT
still has 'an OS' underneath the GUI (as is evident if you manage to
crash Windows Explorer and lose your desktop), but it isn't DOS, and
infact doesn't really have a name except 'WinNT kernel'.

 

[David Candy]

That's not true.Windows has always been an OS in it's own right. What it had was the ability to fall back to dos if there weren't any windows drivers available. But it tried to avoid this because it had to switch to real mode which took a long time.

Both Dos and Windows were designed to run on Intel processors. They reflected the design decisions of intel's engineer Internally they match what the processor is capable of. NT is designed in a non processor specific way, and used to run on 4 different brands of processor (XP Beta was the last to support Alpha chips).

--
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/webdiary/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'll have to trust you on the "NT not built on DOS" point, I'm not
sure if that is true or not.
According to videos we watched in computer class (which used information
directly from Microsoft), a true operating system must control the hardware.
Earlier versions of the Windows (excluding NT), *did not* by themselves,
control the hardware, they simply provided a user interface for DOS to do
it. Therefore, Windows 95, 98, and ME, (and maybe 2K, because I could have
sworn that they used DOS, but I'm not sure), were not, technically, true
operating systems, just GUIs. This came from my mouths of retired
Microsoft programmers, not mine, just in case you don't believe me. But I
appreciate your replies, and hope to hear more.

 

[David Candy]

Windows XP supports DIRECT HARDWARE ACCESS for Dos programs for well known hardware devices. All windows emulated hardware to dos. As direct hardware calls are generally easy to recognise (eg if one writes to port 330 it's the MIDI port - and XP will recognise it as such, and will send it through a VXD, to a driver, then to your sound card [which may or may not be using port 330]). Hardware control is the only way of controlling a sound card.

It doesn't support direct hardware access for devices that are not well known.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Windows XP supports DIRECT HARDWARE ACCESS for Dos programs for well
known hardware devices. All windows emulated hardware to dos. As direct
hardware calls are generally easy to recognise (eg if one writes to
port 330 it's the MIDI port - and XP will recognise it as such, and
will send it through a VXD, to a driver, then to your sound card
[which may or may not be using port 330]). Hardware control is the only
way of controlling a sound card.

It doesn't support direct hardware access for devices that are not well known.

I stand corrected then .. I guess all my crashing DOS programs must have
been doing things with 'not well known' hardware devices, like mice and
graphics cards. 8>. (Examples available).

 

[Ken Blake]

Well, I'll have to trust you on the "NT not built on DOS" point, I'm not
sure if that is true or not.

It is definitely true.

According to videos we watched in computer class (which used information
directly from Microsoft), a true operating system must control the hardware.
Earlier versions of the Windows (excluding NT), *did not* by themselves,
control the hardware, they simply provided a user interface for DOS to do
it. Therefore, Windows 95, 98, and ME, (and maybe 2K, because I could have
sworn that they used DOS, but I'm not sure), were not, technically, true
operating systems, just GUIs. This came from my mouths of retired
Microsoft programmers, not mine, just in case you don't believe

me.


Remember that there were operating systems in existence well
before there was a Microsoft, so Microsoft isn't necessarily the
last word on the subject.

The problem here is that there is no consensus on exactly what
the words "operating system" means. The statement you make above
is very commonly made. But it's made by people (Microsoft or
otherwise) who want the words to mean what *they* want them to
mean. But other people use different definitions of "operating
system" and conclude, correctly for their definition, that
Windows 95, 98, etc. *are* operating systems.

For example, here's a definition from a reasonable authoritative
source, FOLDOC, the Free Online Dictionary of Computing, at
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/index.html

"operating system
<operating system> (OS) The low-level software which handles the
interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates
storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no
application program is running.

The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and
various system programs which use facilities provided by the
kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting
as servers in a client-server relationship.

Some would include a graphical user interface and window system
as part of the OS, others would not. The operating system loader,
BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing
the operating system would generally not be considered part of
the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the
case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS.

The facilities an operating system provides and its general
design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on
programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up
around the machines on which it runs.

Example operating systems include 386BSD, AIX, AOS, Amoeba,
Angel, Artemis microkernel, BeOS, Brazil, COS, CP/M, CTSS,
Chorus, DACNOS, DOSEXEC 2, GCOS, GEORGE 3, GEOS, ITS, KAOS,
Linux, LynxOS, MPV, MS-DOS, MVS, Mach, Macintosh operating
system, Microsoft Windows, MINIX, Multics, Multipop-68, Novell
NetWare, OS-9, OS/2, Pick, Plan 9, QNX, RISC OS, STING, System V,
System/360, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, TRUSIX, TWENEX, TYMCOM-X, Thoth,
Unix, VM/CMS, VMS, VRTX, VSTa, VxWorks, WAITS."

Note two things in particular: the statement in paragraph 3, and
the inclusion of Microsoft Windows (without reference to a
particular version) as an example of an operating system. And the
word "Microsoft Windows" is a clickable link. When you click it,
it lists all the varieties of Windows.

My point here is not that FOLDOC is right and that you are wrong.
It's rather that all the many arguments you see over this are
meaningless and boring, because the answer depends solely on what
you think "operating system" means. Both sides of the argument
are correct, given their definitions.

 

[PaulC]

It is definitely true.


me.


Remember that there were operating systems in existence well
before there was a Microsoft, so Microsoft isn't necessarily the
last word on the subject.

The problem here is that there is no consensus on exactly what
the words "operating system" means. The statement you make above
is very commonly made. But it's made by people (Microsoft or
otherwise) who want the words to mean what *they* want them to
mean. But other people use different definitions of "operating
system" and conclude, correctly for their definition, that
Windows 95, 98, etc. *are* operating systems.

For example, here's a definition from a reasonable authoritative
source, FOLDOC, the Free Online Dictionary of Computing, at
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/index.html

"operating system
<operating system> (OS) The low-level software which handles the
interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates
storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no
application program is running.

The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and
various system programs which use facilities provided by the
kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting
as servers in a client-server relationship.

Some would include a graphical user interface and window system
as part of the OS, others would not. The operating system loader,
BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing
the operating system would generally not be considered part of
the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the
case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS.

The facilities an operating system provides and its general
design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on
programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up
around the machines on which it runs.

Example operating systems include 386BSD, AIX, AOS, Amoeba,
Angel, Artemis microkernel, BeOS, Brazil, COS, CP/M, CTSS,
Chorus, DACNOS, DOSEXEC 2, GCOS, GEORGE 3, GEOS, ITS, KAOS,
Linux, LynxOS, MPV, MS-DOS, MVS, Mach, Macintosh operating
system, Microsoft Windows, MINIX, Multics, Multipop-68, Novell
NetWare, OS-9, OS/2, Pick, Plan 9, QNX, RISC OS, STING, System V,
System/360, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, TRUSIX, TWENEX, TYMCOM-X, Thoth,
Unix, VM/CMS, VMS, VRTX, VSTa, VxWorks, WAITS."

Note two things in particular: the statement in paragraph 3, and
the inclusion of Microsoft Windows (without reference to a
particular version) as an example of an operating system. And the
word "Microsoft Windows" is a clickable link. When you click it,
it lists all the varieties of Windows.

My point here is not that FOLDOC is right and that you are wrong.
It's rather that all the many arguments you see over this are
meaningless and boring, because the answer depends solely on what
you think "operating system" means. Both sides of the argument
are correct, given their definitions.

Basically, all I was saying is that Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, do not control
the hardware at all, they simply provide DOS a GUI to do it, known as
Windows.

 

[CS]

Basically, all I was saying is that Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, do not control
the hardware at all, they simply provide DOS a GUI to do it, known as
Windows.

That's really not true. As soon as the system boot process switches
to protected mode (Windows), the OS, in this case Windows, takes
control of the hardware. But the argument will go on and on between
the proponents of "It is an OS" and their opponents; "It isn't an OS".

It's really a stupid argument that accomplishes nothing.

 

[PaulC]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. You are arguing against the people who designed
the darn system.

 

[Ron Martell]

Windows XP supports DIRECT HARDWARE ACCESS for Dos programs for well known hardware devices. All windows emulated hardware to dos. As direct hardware calls are generally easy to recognise (eg if one writes to port 330 it's the MIDI port - and XP will recognise it as such, and will send it through a VXD, to a driver, then to your sound card [which may or may not be using port 330]). Hardware control is the only way of controlling a sound card.

It doesn't support direct hardware access for devices that are not well known.

That is the exact oppositte of my understanding.

NT based versions of Windows allow no direct access to the hardware by
application programs.

That is why DOS games that write directly to the video, DOS
communications programs that work directly with the serial port, and
specialty applications that work directly with a parallel port
authorisation plug (dongle) will not run.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Windows XP supports DIRECT HARDWARE ACCESS for Dos programs for well
known hardware devices. All windows emulated hardware to dos. As
direct hardware calls are generally easy to recognise (eg if one
writes to port 330 it's the MIDI port - and XP will recognise it as
such, and will send it through a VXD, to a driver, then to your sound
card [which may or may not be using port 330]). Hardware control is
the only way of controlling a sound card.

It doesn't support direct hardware access for devices that are not
well known.

That is the exact oppositte of my understanding.

NT based versions of Windows allow no direct access to the hardware by
application programs.

That is why DOS games that write directly to the video, DOS
communications programs that work directly with the serial port, and
specialty applications that work directly with a parallel port
authorisation plug (dongle) will not run.

That was my understanding too, based on comments received over the
years, and DOS programs that don't run under WinNT (vs those that do),
however I've never poked at the internals of the CMD DOS emulator, so
I'm prepared to believe either .. Sound certainly works (with 'legacy
sound support', and occasionally additional emulation software, loaded)
for some DOS games, and I do believe those were directly prodding the
sound card hardware.