Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: "Ralph Wade Phillips" Subject: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.172.150.50 Message-ID: <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: The Boeing Company X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:28:30 GMT Lines: 32 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.texas.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp Hi there! Luc Van der Veken wrote in article <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... (massive pruning not relevant to my posting ...) > > Even for DOS mode apps, you don't need any 'old' device drivers (for > sound, CD-ROM, etc.) if windows95 is running. > > Just more proof that, unlike some people say, win95 does completely > replace DOS instead of just running on top of it. In fact it's the > other way around: DOS [emulation] runs on top of win95 to provide > services to dos mode apps. Hmmm ... Gee, wonder how this bootable Win95 diskette I got here in my hot little hand works --- boots right up to the A: prompt! Or my machine (one of them) at the house that boots MS-DOS 7 to the C: prompt, and I type "WIN" to get to Win95 ... No, DOS Emulation does NOT run on top of Win95. DOS runs under Win95 to provide a bootstrap environment, but can run complete and entire without WIN.EXE (WIN.COM?) running. Methinks you might be confusing Windows NT and Windows 95 - which LOOK the same, but are not. RwP ###### From: boba4@ma.ultranet.com (Bob) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:05:18 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. http://www.ultranet.com/ Lines: 15 Message-ID: <34a75543.343974073@news.ma.ultranet.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> NNTP-Posting-Host: d11.dial-12.mbo.ma.ultra.net X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net X-Ultra-Time: 29 Dec 1997 08:02:52 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.onenet.net!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.232.56.18!news.ultranet.com!not-for-mail "Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote: > Hmmm ... Gee, wonder how this bootable Win95 diskette I got here in my hot >little hand works --- boots right up to the A: prompt! > Or my machine (one of them) at the house that boots MS-DOS 7 to the C: >prompt, and I type "WIN" to get to Win95 ... > No, DOS Emulation does NOT run on top of Win95. DOS runs under Win95 to >provide a bootstrap environment, but can run complete and entire without >WIN.EXE (WIN.COM?) running. Which proves what exactly, that DOS still exists? I'll grant you that. As you say it boots Win95, which then IS the operating system. It can reach out and use DOS as it sees fit but none of this points to it being a program running on top of DOS as the old versions were. Bob ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> Organization: Wizvax Communications, Troy, NY. USA From: multics@wizvax.wizvax.net (Richard Shetron) NNTP-Posting-Host: wizvax.wizvax.net Message-ID: <34a762d4.0@news.wizvax.net> Date: 29 Dec 97 08:44:04 GMT Lines: 35 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed.wizvax.net!news.wizvax.net!wizvax.wizvax.net!multics In article <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1>, Ralph Wade Phillips wrote: >Hi there! > >Luc Van der Veken wrote in article ><34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... > >(massive pruning not relevant to my posting ...) > [snip] >> Just more proof that, unlike some people say, win95 does completely >> replace DOS instead of just running on top of it. In fact it's the >> other way around: DOS [emulation] runs on top of win95 to provide >> services to dos mode apps. > > Hmmm ... Gee, wonder how this bootable Win95 diskette I got here in my hot >little hand works --- boots right up to the A: prompt! > > Or my machine (one of them) at the house that boots MS-DOS 7 to the C: >prompt, and I type "WIN" to get to Win95 ... > > No, DOS Emulation does NOT run on top of Win95. DOS runs under Win95 to >provide a bootstrap environment, but can run complete and entire without >WIN.EXE (WIN.COM?) running. > > Methinks you might be confusing Windows NT and Windows 95 - which LOOK the >same, but are not. > > RwP I use IBM PC-DOS 7.0 and win95 seems perfectly happy running on top of it;) I upgraded a win3.1/IBM PC-DOS system and win95 left the IBM PC-DOS as the boot os. ###### From: Sam Seiber Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:28:18 -0700 Organization: What? Me Organized, Nah! Lines: 6 Message-ID: <34A7F9D2.1ACF@plinet.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> Reply-To: tingrinfan@plinet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 4567@206.168.149.113 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail I read a book on the guts of WIN 95 about 2 1/2 years ago. IIRC, there are still tiny bits of old DOS code still used. Most of the DOS code is bypassed, and 32 bit WIN 95 does the work. AFAIK, a little bit of real mode code still runs. ###### From: charette@writeme.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 30 Dec 1997 22:05:28 GMT Organization: Internet Gateway Corporation Lines: 34 Message-ID: <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> Reply-To: charette@writeme.com NNTP-Posting-Host: pm33s21.intergate.bc.ca X-Trace: discovery.intergate.bc.ca 883519528 5086 (None) 207.34.182.79 X-Complaints-To: usenet@discovery.intergate.bc.ca X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!News.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!discovery.intergate.bc.ca!not-for-mail >> Just more proof that, unlike some people say, win95 does completely >> replace DOS instead of just running on top of it. In fact it's the >> other way around: DOS [emulation] runs on top of win95 to provide >> services to dos mode apps. Hum...let's see here. Take a look in the BOOT directory of your C: drive: "ATTRIB *.*" See the file called MSDOS.SYS? Type the following: "ATTRIB -H -S -R MSDOS.SYS" Now edit this file in your favorite TEXT editor, and change the line "BootGUI=1" to "BootGUI=0". When you are done, save the file, and type: "ATTRIB -H -S -R MSDOS.SYS" Reboot. And tell me again how Win95 is not a graphical shell that sits on top of DOS 7. Someday, this being alt.folklore.computers, people will be talking about how that marketing guy Bill Gates sure had quite bunch of common fools convinced that he and his company had a real operating system, rather than an old text-based simple o/s with a graphical shell sitting on top that was masquerading as an o/s. Stephane Charette charette@writeme.com ###### From: Jim Stewart Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:50:07 -0800 Organization: http://www.jkmicro.com Lines: 61 Message-ID: <34AA77BF.52BD8A7F@jkmicro.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <689bov$s4q$5@news.sas.ab.ca> <34ae4213.10605948@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: mokelumne.dsp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) To: Luc Van der Veken Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.20.0.50!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news.ncal.verio.com!not-for-mail Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > On 29 Dec 1997 23:29:35 GMT, jsavard@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () told > the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > > > Ralph Wade Phillips (ralphp@techie.com) wrote: > > : Luc Van der Veken wrote in article > > : <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... > > > > : > Even for DOS mode apps, you don't need any 'old' device drivers (for > > : > sound, CD-ROM, etc.) if windows95 is running. > > > > : No, DOS Emulation does NOT run on top of Win95. DOS runs under Win95 to > > : provide a bootstrap environment, but can run complete and entire without > > : WIN.EXE (WIN.COM?) running. > > > > Yes, you're right - but his statement about device drivers is also right. > > > > Windows 95 runs on top of what some people have called "DOS 7", which is a > > 32-bit program, and can thus use Win 95 drivers. And the connection > > between the DOS mode and normal Win95 operation is 'obscured' to make it > > look like just one program. > > > > John Savard > > It feels like there's some mixing up of kernels and shells going on > here. > > When dos7 command.com (or any dos application) is running in dos7, it > uses DOS device drivers just like any other command.com would. > > When it runs in win95, win95 provides an interface that translates > incoming calls (to DOS services) to its own kernel functions and 32bit > drivers - which interface I called DOS emulation, running on top of > win95. Don't we wish... Read Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95 Developer's Resource Kit" book. He makes a compelling case that most of the DOS Int 21h functions in Win95 are old legacy 16-bit code run in V86 mode. > You can boot the system into DOS mode or you can let it continue to > boot into win95. In the latter case, after DOS has been used to load > windows, it is put asleep (just like it did with loader program from > the boot sector itself). If you run a DOS mode app afterward, it runs > not in the DOS that was used to load windows, it runs in a DOS > emulator under windows (for which part of the code may be reused from > the original DOS, you won't hear me deny that.) I disagree. To call the Win95 DOS box a DOS emulator is, to my mind, a big stretch. Granted, the DOS app is running in virtual 86 mode and the Win95 kernel controls whether it lives or dies, but this isn't the popular definition of emulation. When the DOS app uses an Int 21h function, it is still using the old 16-bit DOS code in the OS. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the "Is Win95 a new operating system?" blah blah blah... question read the above book. Schulman knows what he's talking about and he presents an exquisitely clear picture of how Win95 works. Jim ###### From: Jim Stewart Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:51:25 -0800 Organization: http://www.jkmicro.com Lines: 61 Message-ID: <34AA780D.E10E2911@jkmicro.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <689bov$s4q$5@news.sas.ab.ca> <34ae4213.10605948@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: mokelumne.dsp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) To: Luc Van der Veken Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.direct.ca!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news.ncal.verio.com!not-for-mail Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > On 29 Dec 1997 23:29:35 GMT, jsavard@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () told > the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > > > Ralph Wade Phillips (ralphp@techie.com) wrote: > > : Luc Van der Veken wrote in article > > : <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... > > > > : > Even for DOS mode apps, you don't need any 'old' device drivers (for > > : > sound, CD-ROM, etc.) if windows95 is running. > > > > : No, DOS Emulation does NOT run on top of Win95. DOS runs under Win95 to > > : provide a bootstrap environment, but can run complete and entire without > > : WIN.EXE (WIN.COM?) running. > > > > Yes, you're right - but his statement about device drivers is also right. > > > > Windows 95 runs on top of what some people have called "DOS 7", which is a > > 32-bit program, and can thus use Win 95 drivers. And the connection > > between the DOS mode and normal Win95 operation is 'obscured' to make it > > look like just one program. > > > > John Savard > > It feels like there's some mixing up of kernels and shells going on > here. > > When dos7 command.com (or any dos application) is running in dos7, it > uses DOS device drivers just like any other command.com would. > > When it runs in win95, win95 provides an interface that translates > incoming calls (to DOS services) to its own kernel functions and 32bit > drivers - which interface I called DOS emulation, running on top of > win95. Don't we wish... Read Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95 Developer's Resource Kit" book. He makes a compelling case that most of the DOS Int 21h functions in Win95 are old legacy 16-bit code run in V86 mode. > You can boot the system into DOS mode or you can let it continue to > boot into win95. In the latter case, after DOS has been used to load > windows, it is put asleep (just like it did with loader program from > the boot sector itself). If you run a DOS mode app afterward, it runs > not in the DOS that was used to load windows, it runs in a DOS > emulator under windows (for which part of the code may be reused from > the original DOS, you won't hear me deny that.) I disagree. To call the Win95 DOS box a DOS emulator is, to my mind, a big stretch. Granted, the DOS app is running in virtual 86 mode and the Win95 kernel controls whether it lives or dies, but this isn't the popular definition of emulation. When the DOS app uses an Int 21h function, it is still using the old 16-bit DOS code in the OS. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the "Is Win95 a new operating system?" blah blah blah... question read the above book. Schulman knows what he's talking about and he presents an exquisitely clear picture of how Win95 works. Jim ###### From: skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 18:23:05 GMT Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) Lines: 23 Message-ID: <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc456.modem.xmission.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!xmission!not-for-mail On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:18:41 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: >When you boot into DOS, you boot into DOS. >When you let it continue booting into windows, DOS is used to load >windows and is replaced by it once booted, just like the boot loader >on the first sector of your HD or floppy is replaced by DOS once it >loaded it. Except when you boot to DOS, and then run Windows 95 manually by invoking win.com. I can then select start|shutdown|shutdown, and it pops me right back out to DOS (where, if I like, I can run win95 again). Win95 is no more of an independent OS than win31 was. Sure, win95 provides additional facilities, just like Windows 3.1 does. It emulates (or provides front-ends for) many DOS functions, which among other things allows multiple processes to access the filesystem(s) without stepping on each other. But DOS is definitely still there and still running. If it wasn't, my Zip drive and CDROM would stop working when win95 starts, and it wouldn't be possible to exit Windows without rebooting. -Scott ###### From: charette@writeme.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 31 Dec 1997 22:59:37 GMT Organization: Internet Gateway Corporation Lines: 49 Message-ID: <68eiop$2qk$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> Reply-To: charette@writeme.com NNTP-Posting-Host: pm34s32.intergate.bc.ca X-Trace: discovery.intergate.bc.ca 883609177 2900 (None) 207.34.182.43 X-Complaints-To: usenet@discovery.intergate.bc.ca X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.direct.ca!News.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!discovery.intergate.bc.ca!not-for-mail >When you boot into DOS, you boot into DOS. >When you let it continue booting into windows, DOS is used to load >windows and is replaced by it once booted, just like the boot loader >on the first sector of your HD or floppy is replaced by DOS once it >loaded it. [cut] >There is no real analogy in Linux (or any *n*x), but what you say >comes down to saying that unix is in fact a multiuser environment >"sitting on top of a single-user environment", just because you can >also boot it into single-user mode. >It runs either single or multi-user, but never both at the same time. Yes, but the same kernel is used in both. Whether you use X or stay at the command-prompt, the operating system remains the same. You are using UNIX. In Win95, I'm saying that the "kernel" remains the same, and the operating system is still DOS. Whether or not you decide to use the graphical shell, the operating system remains a text-based DOS. >A win95 system can be booted into DOS or win95, but not both at the >same time: your device access is either real mode, or 32-bit protected >mode, but never both at the same time. This was true of Win31 as well, no? If you happen to have a protected mode driver for a device, then Win will take advantage of it. But even in protected-mode, the "graphical shell" still has to switch to real-mode to communicate with the underlying system. Isn't that why in Win95, the first 1 meg of memory is the same everywhere, so that applications all have access to the underlying DOS functionality? If an application where to overwrite the first 1 meg of address space, doesn't the entire system crash because DOS is still the OS? Maybe a Win95 programmer can help me out. I haven't done any programming for Win95. What I want to know, is if the same interrupt handlers and other services that are installed by DOS 7 when Win95 boots up are still installed in memory and are still used by the graphical shell portion of Win95. (Note that I think the argument is worthless anyway...obviously, when people talk about such things as O/S, proving that one is ABC while another is DEF will not make anyone change their opinions! We're all slaves to the O/S that we happen to like!) :) Stephane Charette charette@writeme.com ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:04:31 GMT Organization: . Lines: 34 Message-ID: <34abca82.6085497@news.innet.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <689bov$s4q$5@news.sas.ab.ca> <34ae4213.10605948@news.innet.be> <34AA77BF.52BD8A7F@jkmicro.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-55.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:50:07 -0800, Jim Stewart told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the "Is Win95 a new > operating system?" blah blah blah... question read the above book. [Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95 Developer's Resource Kit"] > Schulman knows what he's talking about and he presents an exquisitely > clear picture of how Win95 works. I haven't read the book, but does he say somewhere that win95 is switching back and forth between real and protected mode, except when it really has to (to provide access to devices for which you loaded a real-mode driver)? If it really is running on top of dos, it would have to - even if there are only 32bit drivers. Only if it takes over from dos completely, it can stay in 32 bit mode. Again: as long as you don't have any devices requiring real-mode drivers. I've seen some people (mostly NT advocates) claim that win95 does switch needlessly, but so far nobody has shown me any proof of it, or quoted a credible source that states it. That old 16-bit code is reused to provide backward compatibility for 16-bit software, is only logical (why re-invent the wheel?). But the magic words here are "V86 mode". -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 01:10:09 GMT Organization: . Lines: 72 Message-ID: <34aae31e.12385911@news.innet.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <68eiop$2qk$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-54.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail On 31 Dec 1997 22:59:37 GMT, charette@writeme.com told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > In Win95, I'm saying that the "kernel" remains the same, and the > operating system is still DOS. Whether or not you decide to use > the graphical shell, the operating system remains a text-based DOS. That the kernel is the same is true for linux/unix and X, not for Windows. Let me (nag on and) quote the resource kit: [after all real-mode initialisation is done:] : The remaining Windows 95 system components are loaded in the : following sequence: : :· KERNEL32.DLL provides the main Windows components, and : KRNL386.EXE loads the Windows device drivers : · GDI.EXE and GDI32.EXE provide the graphic device interface : code :· USER.EXE and USER32.EXE provide the user interface code "KERNEL32", doesn't sound much like they use the 16-bit DOS kernel. "GDI" and "USER" are 16-bit code afaik, but *not* running in real mode. and somewhere else: : After Windows 95 switches into protected mode during system startup, : any time an I/O operation uses a device controlled by a real-mode : driver, the computer has to switch from protected mode to virtual : 8088 mode. This is a very expensive operation in terms of CPU cycles : and typically has to be done several times during a single I/O : operation, adversely impacting performance. If there's a reason why they would NOT want to switch back to real mode all of the time, I think it's clear that it's this. A pity that they don't say explicitly that they don't switch back for no reason at all. > Maybe a Win95 programmer can help me out. I haven't done any > programming for Win95. What I want to know, is if the same > interrupt handlers and other services that are installed by DOS 7 > when Win95 boots up are still installed in memory and are still > used by the graphical shell portion of Win95. I'm a win32 programmer (though I don't claim to be a guru - there's *lots* of things I still don't know). Still installed in the first 1MB: probably, yes. After all, when you shut down win95 (the original, not OSR2) it returns to DOS. Still used: no way (let's forget DOS mode programs for a moment), and a good reason can also be found in the resource kit: : Relying on a real-mode driver for I/O operations also reduces the : degree of multitasking that Windows 95 can provide because real-mode : drivers were not designed for a preemptively multitasking : environment. The same is valid for nearly all DOS kernel code: not designed for a preemptively multitasking environment. And multitasking is definitely something that's done (= controlled) by the kernel. All lines starting with a colon (:) are copyright Microsoft Corp (which will make some people stop believing them, of course :) -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 1 Jan 1998 01:28:29 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Lines: 10 Message-ID: <68erft$if@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bbs.cpcn.com Originator: root@bbs.cpcn.com Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news.voicenet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!netaxs.com!bbs.cpcn.com!root One simple Win95/DOS/BASIC question if I may (yes, I know I'm going off subject of this newsgroup but I'll be brief): When I print from DOS applications running under Win95, it seems there's a long lag time before printing begins. I suspect Win95 has to load and start up a printer driver, because if the printer is off, a Win95 message flashes up and takes control. Is there a way to turn that off, and let it print directly, or to speed loading? Thanks. ###### From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 1 Jan 1998 03:28:26 GMT Organization: Area Systems, Mountain View, California Lines: 23 Message-ID: <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: access.class-a.net X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test46 (31 Oct 96) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.he.net!nixon.area.com!not-for-mail In article <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com>, Scott Brown wrote: >Except when you boot to DOS, and then run Windows 95 manually by >invoking win.com. I can then select start|shutdown|shutdown, and it >pops me right back out to DOS (where, if I like, I can run win95 >again). Win95 is no more of an independent OS than win31 was. > >Sure, win95 provides additional facilities, just like Windows 3.1 >does. It emulates (or provides front-ends for) many DOS functions, >which among other things allows multiple processes to access the >filesystem(s) without stepping on each other. But DOS is definitely >still there and still running. If it wasn't, my Zip drive and CDROM >would stop working when win95 starts, and it wouldn't be possible to >exit Windows without rebooting. But you said right there it's *not* there. The DOS functions are being *emulated* or simulated or reimplimented. So *MSDOS ITSELF* is not there.. There is something _else_ (part of Windows95) implementing the API (or a subset thereof). -- mattack@area.com ###### From: skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 07:53:28 GMT Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) Lines: 39 Message-ID: <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc398.modem.xmission.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.60.22.3!xmission!not-for-mail On 1 Jan 1998 03:28:26 GMT, mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote: >But you said right there it's *not* there. The DOS functions are >being *emulated* or simulated or reimplimented. > >So *MSDOS ITSELF* is not there.. There is something _else_ (part of >Windows95) implementing the API (or a subset thereof). Then what of the part of the API which is not part of that subset? If win95 emulates only some of the many DOS functions, and DOS itself doesn't exist in those moments, then what the hell is making my Zip drive work? I'll guarantee you that Windows all by itself doesn't know how to run a Zip drive, and there sure aren't any Windows-based Zip drivers on my box. Also, if DOS is supposed to not exist underneath Windows 95, then what is all that crap that "mem /c" shows me? Whatever it is, it's consuming 230k[1] of each and every DOS session I open...you'd think that a *real* virtual DOS machine would be lots roomier, with all that DOS emulation code living somewhere in global memory, not in my v86 machine. Here, do an experiment to prove to yourself what's going on. Find the file "himem.sys" and "emm386.exe" on your system - these are, of course, the old MSDOS way of dealing with system memory beyond the 1Mb mark, and should mean absolutely nothing to a native, full-fledged, self-contained OS like Windows 95...right? Anyway, rename those files to something else. Reboot, and observe. When (if) you ever get your box to boot up again, be sure to remind me how DOS doesn't matter anymore... -Scott [1] Okay, 135k of that is stuff I load on purpose, like that silly Zip disk driver...but the other 95k is crap that Windows loads all by itself (and no, I *don't* want/need "setver" loaded). ###### From: tnyari@voicenet.com (Trevor N.) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 10:23:50 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] Lines: 23 Message-ID: <34ac6d4b.737274@snews.zippo.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-461.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!enews.sgi.com!zdc!szdc!super.zippo.com!newsp.zippo.com!snews1 On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:28:30 GMT, "Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote: >Hi there! > > >Luc Van der Veken wrote in article ><34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... > Before getting into this kind of debate, please have a look at some background matieral first. Read _Unauthorized Windows 95 : A Developer's Guide to Exploring the Foundations of Windows 'Chicago'_ ISBN: 1568841698 by Andrew Schulman. That book has answers to most of the points I see brought up time and time again on usenet. -- Win*ows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. -Rev. Pee Kitty ###### From: tnyari@voicenet.com (Trevor N.) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 10:23:50 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] Lines: 23 Message-ID: <34ac6d4b.737274@snews.zippo.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-461.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!enews.sgi.com!zdc!szdc!super.zippo.com!newsp.zippo.com!snews1 On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:28:30 GMT, "Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote: >Hi there! > > >Luc Van der Veken wrote in article ><34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be>... > Before getting into this kind of debate, please have a look at some background matieral first. Read _Unauthorized Windows 95 : A Developer's Guide to Exploring the Foundations of Windows 'Chicago'_ ISBN: 1568841698 by Andrew Schulman. That book has answers to most of the points I see brought up time and time again on usenet. -- Win*ows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. -Rev. Pee Kitty ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 12:50:06 GMT Organization: . Lines: 17 Message-ID: <34ad8c12.4874535@news.innet.be> References: <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-52.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsxfer.visi.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 09:31:36 GMT, bmarcum@iglou.com told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > Try that with any version of DOS; I wouldn't encourage that. > shouldn't MSDOS.SYS be a binary file? > Where is the actual kernel? All of it has been moved to IO.SYS, and MSDOS.SYS is now a text file, containing win95 startup options. -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### From: skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 18:18:14 GMT Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) Lines: 119 Message-ID: <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc398.modem.xmission.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!xmission!not-for-mail On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 12:50:04 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: >Hate to disappoint you, but you seem to be carrying a lot more luggage >along than only the 135k you say you load yourself for your ZIP drive. Well, here's the list. It's a "mem /c" list, because distinguishing code from data doesn't make the data-filled memory any more available to my applications. SYSTEM (39K) - kind of non-optional HIMEM (1K) - XMS memory is almost always a Good Thing[1] vmm32 (33K) - Interfacing? Can you say "bloat"? COMMAND (9K) - urg. _WIN (3K) - But isn't vmm32 supposed to be the interface? COMMAND (10K) - ick. IFSHLP (3K) - Filesystem services, tolerable enough... SETVER (1K) - Completely useless![2] [1] So to speak. [2] I have *never* seen a program that required setver before it would run properly. My experience shows that a program will either (a) do a minimum version check, and be happy with anything newer than a certain level, or (b) refuse to run on any but a specific version of DOS, regardless of whether setver is configured to fool that program or not. Setver is quite useless in either case. I've been thinking about getting the DOS port of ksh to replace command. I understand that it's pretty good at mostly disappearing when it's not needed. Not to mention being a vastly superior shell in most respects (well, here's *hoping* that it translates to a DOS box, anyway). The remaining 135k is, as I said, mostly stuff I load because I like having it there: EMM386 (4K) - needed for UMBs, invoked with "noems" option SMARTDRV (23K) - disks run faster and smoother with 6Mb cache[3] MOUSE900 (15K) - only needed occasionally, I might take this out ANSI (4K) - my command prompt is in color! IDE-CD (16K) - CDROM driver...[4] MVSOUND (11K) - Pro Audio sound card API, Sound Blaster emulation ASPIPPM1 (7K) - Zip parallel port driver SCSIDRVR (18K) - Zip drive driver MSCDEX (27K) - CDROM again[4] [3] Painful experience shows that leaving the disk caching to Windows results in slow performance and lots of wear and tear on the disks. Smartdrive is no great shakes, but it's an improvement. [4] I might pull these out and allow win95 to drive the CDROM. I've recently found that mscdex doesn't deal very well with win95-style long filenames on a CD. (I still don't know whether it's funny or sad to see those "foo~1.bar" filenames on my FreeBSD box...) >First: this size discussion doesn't really matter for win95 being >loaded on top of DOS or not, because the basic memory image of a DOS >shell is a *copy* of all that's found in the original first 640k, to >which some 3k of code is added (the actual interface between DOS and >win95). There's another 3k that are loaded in conventional memory when >you start windows (win.com), so you don't see it when you boot to DOS. The fact that there *is* an original 640k is kind of relevant to the main thread, which questions the existence of MSDOS as such. There is no original 640k hiding in a Linux box. If win95 were a true and honest OS unto itself, then there would not be an original 640k to be copied to every newly-spawned v86 machine - each and every DOS session would be started from scratch, allowing different configurations of environment and device drivers. I don't have OS/2, but I understand that it does handle DOS sessions more along those lines... >The rest is used for data, a couple of device drivers (yes, they are >loaded: IO.SYS uses some default settings if you have no config.sys or >if the necessary lines are not there, so it always loads HIMEM.SYS, >SETVER.EXE and IFSHLP.SYS among other things) and for command.com (you >do need a shell that interprets your commands). A command shell is neccesary under a pure GUI OS? I can't even begin to point out the absurdity of such a thing. Mac hackers are probably ROTFL right now. >DOS *does* matter, in the same way that you can't boot linux without >lilo. I've not done Linux myself, but FreeBSD has an equivalent to lilo called bootmgr. It's just a dinkus to select which partition is going to boot, and isn't even needed if the disk contains only FreeBSD. I'd guess the same is true of Linux. That doesn't sound very much like what MSDOS does. >DOS is being used to load windows, and it doesn't want to load all of >it in low memory (because everything that's loaded there will be >copied to every virtual DOS machine). It also loads itself in the HMA >by default (one of the default config.sys entries used by IO.SYS). >That's why it needs access to extended memory, and why it may refuse >to boot or only boot to DOS mode if you hide himem.sys. If you pay attention, you'll discover that DOS boots without himem.sys just fine. It's the win.com program that freaks out if there's no XMS available (the HMA is immaterial except in regard to how much of the base 640k is occupied by the OS). >Again, I don't want to disappoint you, but you DO have SETVER loaded. >If you leave it out of your config.sys, it is still loaded because it >is one of the defaults. >If it wasn't there, some of your older programs would refuse to work. Yes, I do have it loaded, very much against my wishes. The default, you-can't-take-'em-out config entries are just one of the brain-dead things that really sucks about win95. I'm sure (well, *almost* sure) that there exists a way to tell the system to ignore its defaults and only do what's explicitly listed in the config files, if only it were documented somewhere handy. Shall we begin discussing the relative merits of Microsoft's documentation skills? -Scott -Scott ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:05:49 GMT Organization: . Lines: 174 Message-ID: <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-51.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I know in advance I'm not going to succeed in that ;) On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 18:18:14 GMT, skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > SYSTEM (39K) - kind of non-optional > HIMEM (1K) - XMS memory is almost always a Good Thing[1] > vmm32 (33K) - Interfacing? Can you say "bloat"? > COMMAND (9K) - urg. > _WIN (3K) - But isn't vmm32 supposed to be the interface? > COMMAND (10K) - ick. > IFSHLP (3K) - Filesystem services, tolerable enough... > SETVER (1K) - Completely useless![2] My list: MSDOS 17,248 (17K) - mostly data HIMEM 1,168 (1K) IFSHLP 2,864 (3K) SETVER 832 (1K) WIN 3,536 (3K) - (1) vmm32 3,072 (3K) COMMAND 7,408 (7K) - (2) Free 619,024 (605K) (1) I posted another message somewhere in this thread, where His Royal Pain-in-the-ass Micro Soft himself explains why it is loaded. It has nothing to do with the interface. Actually, this is the 'other' 3k I spoke about in my previous post. (2) I guess there's only 1 command.com here because I don't have an autoexec.bat to be processed by it, so command.com is skipped in the booting process (well, at least I think that explains why I have 1 and you have 2 of them). The difference in size must be caused by a smaller environment. > [2] I have *never* seen a program that required setver before it would > run properly. I've never had a config without setver (I think), so I can't answer to that. But you'll notice that its size is only a fraction of what it used to be in previous DOS versions. > I've been thinking about getting the DOS port of ksh to replace > command. I understand that it's pretty good at mostly disappearing > when it's not needed. Not to mention being a vastly superior shell in > most respects (well, here's *hoping* that it translates to a DOS box, > anyway). Good idea, and I expect it to work (except for long filename support). Personally I prefer 4dos which also is a vast improvement over command, saves about 2k while running (more if it can get access to the UMB's, but this is win95), swaps in & out much faster (if you allow it to swap to EMS instead of disk), and also more of it disappears when not needed. And it supports long filenames. BTW: I deliberately started command.com instead of 4dos for the mem output above. > [3] Painful experience shows that leaving the disk caching to Windows > results in slow performance and lots of wear and tear on the disks. > Smartdrive is no great shakes, but it's an improvement. Sure about that? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that win95 disables smartdrv when it finds it, and replaces it by its own cache (which is supposed 2 B an 'improved' version of smartdrv that can grow and shrink as needed, and that handles delayed writing a bit more efficiently). It can be that this disabling is only done during installation of win95, however. You may want to experiment with minimum and maximum cache sizes a bit. > [4] I might pull these out and allow win95 to drive the CDROM. I've > recently found that mscdex doesn't deal very well with win95-style > long filenames on a CD. (I still don't know whether it's funny or sad > to see those "foo~1.bar" filenames on my FreeBSD box...) Not only that. Having smartdrive, the old CD driver and MSCDEX in use slows down ALL your disk access, because the system has to switch to real mode and back at least 2 times per read or write (simply put: once to prepare the device driver, and again to do the actual read or write. Don't ask me for the details, I'd have to dig up some DOS books again to refresh my memory.) Switching from protected back to real mode isn't as slow anymore as it was on a 286, but nevertheless it still consumes a respectable number of machine cycles. > The fact that there *is* an original 640k is kind of relevant to the > main thread, which questions the existence of MSDOS as such. There is > no original 640k hiding in a Linux box. If win95 were a true and > honest OS unto itself, then there would not be an original 640k to be > copied to every newly-spawned v86 machine - each and every DOS session > would be started from scratch, allowing different configurations of > environment and device drivers. I don't have OS/2, but I understand > that it does handle DOS sessions more along those lines... According to m$, they did it to ensure more backward compatibility. And I have to remind you, I never denied it's presence. I even said it remains active if you have real-mode device drivers loaded (and is put asleep if you don't.) > A command shell is neccesary under a pure GUI OS? I can't even begin > to point out the absurdity of such a thing. Mac hackers are probably > ROTFL right now. I *was* referring to a DOS window under win95. Tell a unix hacker you're going to open a new console window under X without running a command shell for it, and he might start ROTFL. > I've not done Linux myself, but FreeBSD has an equivalent to lilo > called bootmgr. It's just a dinkus to select which partition is going > to boot, and isn't even needed if the disk contains only FreeBSD. I'd > guess the same is true of Linux. Somebody has to load the kernel, before it can be started. Since a standard boot sector on a PC loads IO.SYS, it would be a pain to try and load linux (or BSD) with it. Lilo, just like bootmgr, adds multiboot capability to that. > That doesn't sound very much like what MSDOS does. Agree, DOS is capable of doing more. They held on to it, to make sure that win95 would run on all computers that ran dos before (when you started installing w95, it didn't know yet if it had 32bit drivers for all devices under your hood. So they kept dos, to have something to fall back to if there was something they didn't recognize.) > >DOS is being used to load windows, and it doesn't want to load all of > >it in low memory (because everything that's loaded there will be > >copied to every virtual DOS machine). It also loads itself in the HMA > >by default (one of the default config.sys entries used by IO.SYS). > >That's why it needs access to extended memory, and why it may refuse > >to boot or only boot to DOS mode if you hide himem.sys. > > If you pay attention, you'll discover that DOS boots without himem.sys > just fine. It's the win.com program that freaks out if there's no XMS > available (the HMA is immaterial except in regard to how much of the > base 640k is occupied by the OS). I didn't want to go into too much details, so I said nothing about win.com. DOS starts, autoexec.bat is executed (backward compatibility, they say), and after that is finished win.com is (invisibly) loaded and started, which in turn loads the rest of windows to extended memory. If there's no extended memory available, it chokes. > >Again, I don't want to disappoint you, but you DO have SETVER loaded. > Yes, I do have it loaded, very much against my wishes. The default, Well, that 1k won't make the difference :) Final side remark: all I said may have led you to the conclusion that I'm a windoze fanatic. If I was, would I be running Linux as a second OS (to try and figure out which one best suits my needs)? I love bashing m$ as much as anybody else, but on the other hand I try to relativize it a bit: windows 95 *is* a new os (how else would you explain all those new bugs? ;) I assume a fair amount of old code has been reused, but saying that it is an enhanced version of 3.1, still running on top of dos, is going to far im(ns)ho. Making the old kernel suitable for preemptive multitasking would have been more work than rewriting it completely, for example. -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:30:40 GMT Organization: . Lines: 32 Message-ID: <34ad3094.10294956@news.innet.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-38.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news.edu.sollentuna.se!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 18:18:14 GMT, skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > things that really sucks about win95. I'm sure (well, *almost* sure) > that there exists a way to tell the system to ignore its defaults and > only do what's explicitly listed in the config files, if only it were > documented somewhere handy. Shall we begin discussing the relative > merits of Microsoft's documentation skills? Put this in your config.sys: DOS=NOAUTO and don't forget to add DEVICE=IFSHLP.SYS or windows will choke. NOAUTO is documented in the resource kit (on the CDROM), but not fully, and in KB articles Q135481 (fully) and Q116253 (problems it may cause, and a very nice workaround: "if windows hangs during startup: remove it, or try and find out yourself which drivers to load explicitly".) I'll try to be honest now: I once read the resource kit from start to end, so I should have remembered NOAUTO, but I forgot it somehow. Tom Seddon made me remember it in another post in this thread (thanks, Tom). -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### From: skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 08:57:11 GMT Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) Lines: 130 Message-ID: <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc398.modem.xmission.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!xmission!not-for-mail On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:05:49 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: >(2) I guess there's only 1 command.com here because I don't have an >autoexec.bat to be processed by it, so command.com is skipped in the >booting process (well, at least I think that explains why I have 1 and >you have 2 of them). Sounds right. Command comes in pieces; there's a fixed part, and a part that can be overwritten by the program it runs, being reloaded at need when another prompt needs to be issued. That behavior is an artifact of times long past...[makes desparate attempt to get at least a little bit back on topic] >The difference in size must be caused by a smaller environment. 2k is what I've got. If you don't say otherwise (and lacking a config.sys, you haven't), you get 256 bytes. It's also vaguely possible that we've got different release versions, and that command varies in size between them. >I've never had a config without setver (I think), so I can't answer to >that. But you'll notice that its size is only a fraction of what it >used to be in previous DOS versions. I never used it in previous DOS versions... >Good idea, and I expect it to work (except for long filename support). That comes as a surprise, I guess I'd better re-read the docs. If it's still so, then I just hope it won't be too much of a hassle to fix. >Personally I prefer 4dos which also is a vast improvement over >command, saves about 2k while running (more if it can get access to >the UMB's, but this is win95), swaps in & out much faster (if you >allow it to swap to EMS instead of disk), and also more of it >disappears when not needed. >And it supports long filenames. You can still get UMBs under win95, just run emm386 in config.sys (that is, if you can tolerate using a *DOS* device driver :). I don't know if it's even worth the trouble - a well-cached disk is no deterrent to swapping, and if the memory footprint is small enough to suit you, there's no reason to mess with it. >Sure about that? >I vaguely remember reading somewhere that win95 disables smartdrv when >it finds it, and replaces it by its own cache (which is supposed 2 B >an 'improved' version of smartdrv that can grow and shrink as needed, >and that handles delayed writing a bit more efficiently). >It can be that this disabling is only done during installation of >win95, however. Quite sure. Running "smartdrv /s" before and after hitting the disk shows the expected changes in cache hit/miss figures, and performance varies according to which disks are cached by Smartdrive. The win95 installer did clobber my config files, including removing the smartdrive line. Good thing I kept backups. >You may want to experiment with minimum and maximum cache sizes a bit. I haven't found anything that looks much like a disk cache config area in win95. There's something named "read-ahead optimization", but there seems to be no (obvious) way to specifically control memory allocation, deferred-write behavior, or caching of specific drives. According to the resource kit (which gets my vote for the most poorly indexed document of the year), the Windows 95 disk cache is indeed dynamically sized, based on what Windows thinks is happening. That predictive behavior is based on assumptions of memory being scarce and disk space being precious. But win95 apparently doesn't have the smarts to realize that *my* box has tons of memory and scads of disk space, and I have no way of telling it that I *want* it to use more memory and disk to achieve better performance. Unless I use the old Smartdrive... >Not only that. Having smartdrive, the old CD driver and MSCDEX in use >slows down ALL your disk access, because the system has to switch to >real mode and back at least 2 times per read or write (simply put: >once to prepare the device driver, and again to do the actual read or >write. Don't ask me for the details, I'd have to dig up some DOS books >again to refresh my memory.) It wouldn't matter anyway, because of the Zip drive (there's a win95 native driver, but its performance is truly dismal). It's not like I never *tried* running win95 configured with all virtual device drivers, pretty much as "optimal" as it gets. Its performance in that state was nothing to get excited about. >Well, that 1k won't make the difference :) It could, given a borderline case. Besides, it's the principle of the thing... :) >Final side remark: all I said may have led you to the conclusion that >I'm a windoze fanatic. If I was, would I be running Linux as a second >OS (to try and figure out which one best suits my needs)? Try running both. A spare 486 and some off-brand Ethernet cards are cheap enough these days. As soon as I find the time, I plan on making my FreeBSD box a well-connected infoserver, router, masq box for my home LAN, nameserver, and anything else I can think of. As much as I detest much of what Windows 95 is, I can't deny that it's a *very* well-supported platform as far as user apps...but it sucks bad when it comes to non-client-type networking jobs. >I love bashing m$ as much as anybody else, but on the other hand I try >to relativize it a bit: windows 95 *is* a new os (how else would you >explain all those new bugs? ;) It didn't take a new OS to account for all those bugs in 3.x. >I assume a fair amount of old code has been reused, but saying that it >is an enhanced version of 3.1, still running on top of dos, is going >to far im(ns)ho. I'll have to disagree with that. DOS and Windows are still two discreet entities, even though both have been significantly enhanced to work well together and provide more services. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to conceal the nature of that relationship - either in an effort to not scare the customers, or in yet another bid for world dominance at the expense of anything and everything else. Not that I'm bitter or anything. -Scott ###### From: Tom Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:51:36 +0000 Organization: None whatsoever Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sunholme.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: sunholme.demon.co.uk [193.237.138.67] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Trial Version 3.04 Lines: 70 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!sunholme.demon.co.uk!junkyard In article <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com>, Scott Brown writes >I haven't found anything that looks much like a disk cache config area >in win95. There's something named "read-ahead optimization", but >there seems to be no (obvious) way to specifically control memory >allocation, deferred-write behavior, or caching of specific drives. This allows you to turn on/off the caching, which is as sophisticated as it gets. (You wouldn't want to scare the users with complex things like, er, disk caching, would you?). You can also go into the Troubleshooting (same dialog box) to turn off caching in its entirety -- should you wish to do such a thing. I've never dared do it myself, as Windows '95 is quite slow enough normally. > >According to the resource kit (which gets my vote for the most poorly >indexed document of the year), the Windows 95 disk cache is indeed >dynamically sized, based on what Windows thinks is happening. That >predictive behavior is based on assumptions of memory being scarce and >disk space being precious. > >But win95 apparently doesn't have the smarts to realize that *my* box >has tons of memory and scads of disk space, and I have no way of >telling it that I *want* it to use more memory and disk to achieve >better performance. Unless I use the old Smartdrive... You need to edit system.ini to sort this kind of thing out. (Yes, Windows '95 still uses it...) Look through it until you find the [vcache] section. By default this is empty, but you can add two lines thus: MinFileCache=X MaxFileCache=Y which means the file cache will be restricted from (X)K to (Y)K. Apparently bad things will happen if you make X (and possibly Y) zero [1]. On my 16MB 486 I limit the cache from 128K to 1024K and it makes everything, bar disk access, much faster than if Windows '95 is left to fend for itself. (Never a good thing in my experience.) Generally Windows '95's disk cache seems OK, and if you've got plenty of memory you don't need to change the size too much. Bear in mind though that the disk cache grows bigger and bigger with use, but never (without user intervention) gets smaller. Interesting how the individual parts of Windows '95 reflect the whole :-) (The world's first fractal operating system perhaps.) [1]: I am not quite sure why setting the disk cache minimum size (or indeed its maximum size) to zero should cause any problems at all. How badly written is Windows '95, if it doesn't even check for such an obvious case such as this? >It's not like I never *tried* running win95 configured with all >virtual device drivers, pretty much as "optimal" as it gets. Its >performance in that state was nothing to get excited about. Try the vcache tip above, if it looks useful, but yes, the performance of Windows '95 does leave something to be desired. (Such a shame Windows 3.11 was so crap! At least it *felt* faster...) Oh and you can get Windows '95 tips and tricks and stuff here: "Windows '95 Annoyances" http://www.creativelement.com/win95ann/ I *think* it's still there -- it's definitely still on the www. A very useful site. --Tom My real e-mail address is tom@sunholme.demon.co.uk ###### From: "George Gray" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:05:06 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Lines: 24 Message-ID: <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 20934043.bellatlantic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.onenet.net!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!world1.bellatlantic.net!news Man!!! These are the types of discussions that make this newsgroup stuff worth reading. Now, my 2 cents worth... >I'll have to disagree with that. DOS and Windows are still two >discreet entities If this is true, then why do I no longer have to fiddle around with config.sys, autoexec, memmaker, emm386, etc.? My CDROM is NOT using a real mode driver, my Zip Drive zips along without a DOS driver, my Autoexec has two lines and they are both PATH statements and the config.sys is empty. Just because there is a text mode command line and DOS compatibility, does NOT mean this is simply a DOS piggyback ride. NT has a command line, you can run some DOS software (you can even run text-mode O/S 2 1.x stuff) but I doubt you will find DOS anywhere in the OS. If DOS were truly a separate entity, Microsoft would have released, commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a gui (as greedy as they are, they would have capitalized on those of us who do not wish to be gooeyed!) Besides, isn't any operating system that manages disks a 'disk operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? ###### From: Ben Hutchings Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 6 Jan 1998 04:22:01 -0000 Organization: Not organised Lines: 31 Sender: womble@max97.public.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: max97.public.ox.ac.uk Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ais.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews.ftech.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail In article <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com>, George Gray wrote: >If DOS were truly a separate entity, Microsoft would have released, >commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a gui (as greedy as they are, they >would have capitalized on those of us who do not wish to be gooeyed!) You can run MS-DOS 7 without Windows 95. You can run Windows 95 without MS-DOS 7 (though you do need an alternative DOS). Does this not suggest rather strongly that they are separate? There are several reasons why Microsoft might not want to release MS-DOS 7 separately: * they want to force people to run Windows and Microsoft software that runs under Windows * they don't want to undermine their claim that Windows 95 "does not use DOS" * they don't think the number of potential buyers justifies the marketing costs I believe MS-DOS 6.22 is still available to OEMs though. >Besides, isn't any operating system that manages disks a 'disk >operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? Yes, but that is not the usual meaning of DOS. -- Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/ email/finger m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/ "I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." ###### From: skb@xmission.removethis.com (Scott Brown) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:03:20 GMT Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) Lines: 105 Message-ID: <34b1d572.459285600@news.xmission.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc74.modem.xmission.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!xmission!not-for-mail On Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:05:06 -0500, "George Gray" wrote: >Man!!! > >These are the types of discussions that make this newsgroup stuff worth >reading. We aim to please. This discussion has prompted me to rethink my position on all of this (I don't do holy wars anymore), but after going over the available evidence, I still stand by my original position. >Now, my 2 cents worth... > >>I'll have to disagree with that. DOS and Windows are still two >>discreet entities > >If this is true, then why do I no longer have to fiddle around with >config.sys, autoexec, memmaker, emm386, etc.? My CDROM is NOT using a real >mode driver, my Zip Drive zips along without a DOS driver, my Autoexec has >two lines and they are both PATH statements and the config.sys is empty. You don't *have* to[2], but the fact that you still *can* shows that DOS is still present and functional, whether Windows 95 is loaded or not (you *do* have a "Windows 95" boot diskette, don't you? Does it boot Windows 95, or MSDOS 7.x?). That Windows 95 is capable of driving those devices itself, and of providing DOS-mode emulation, is of no consequence. Lotus 1-2-3, years and years ago, was well capable of handling disk hardware (via BIOS?) and MSDOS filesystem all by itself (it didn't use DOS while it ran). That didn't make it a real OS, though. BTW, you *still* have to manage a bunch of device drivers and config files, you know. Windows 95 just gives you a GUI way to do it. You've got win.ini, system.ini, and that stupid registry. "Here, let's put all of your important configuration info in a single, heavily-used and therefore easily corrupted file, in a format that you can't grok without special tools." Madness, I tell you. I digress. >Just because there is a text mode command line and DOS compatibility, does >NOT mean this is simply a DOS piggyback ride. NT has a command line, you >can run some DOS software (you can even run text-mode O/S 2 1.x stuff) but I >doubt you will find DOS anywhere in the OS. If DOS were truly a separate >entity, Microsoft would have released, commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a gui >(as greedy as they are, they would have capitalized on those of us who do >not wish to be gooeyed!) You'll get no argument from me about NT, unless you try to tell me that it does not suck 1,001 different ways. NT is its own OS, and does not stand on the shoulders of a midget like 95 does. As for MSDOS 7 as a separate product, Microsoft has been struggling to get away from DOS for years now. When Windows was invented, everyone was supposed to run *that* 24/7 and never look at a DOS prompt again, because Windows was so insanely great that nobody could possibly have a use for one of those filthy old command-line/text-mode apps again. It didn't work. To get where we are now, Microsoft had to go to great lengths to hide DOS from the user. It's no big thing to make a win95 box boot straight into DOS, but there are no install-time options for that, and you'll never even know that it's possible if you listen only to Microsoft's gospel. I notice where you say that NT can run *some* DOS software. That phrase really doesn't inspire confidence about NT's ability to deal with the vast hordes of MSDOS apps that still exist. Could it be that you need a *real* MSDOS to run MSDOS apps? Could that be why Windows 95, with its highly-touted MSDOS capabilities, runs along with a fully-functional MSDOS? I don't really know why Microsoft wants MSDOS to disappear, other than their well-known reputation for doing non-hackerly things. Maybe they just want to sell new versions of their software (what's wrong with the software I had before?). Maybe it's the same motive that drives car companies to built really expensive shitboxes that fall apart in five years[1] - greed! If Microsoft built stable, dependable systems, then they wouldn't be able to sell you another bug fix...er, I mean, *upgrade*...every year. No profit in that, is there? At least IBM had the forthrightness to charge through the nose to license and support their stable, dependable systems. But I'm not bitter. >Besides, isn't any operating system that manages >disks a 'disk operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? Context. -Scott [1] I've never owned a new car; my two are 26 and 23 years old, run great, and are vastly cheaper to own and operate if you include things like maintenance, insurance, taxes, and depreciation. [2] Actually, you *do*! Without an existing config.sys, DOS7 makes assumptions (ifsmgr.sys and himem.sys devices, plus the traditional command.com as the default shell). You can disable this behavior, in which case you *will* need some explicit stuff in config.sys before win95 will run. ###### Date: 06 Jan 98 10:38:00 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> Message-ID: <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 22 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wnfeed!worldnet.att.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.244.4.2!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.117 In article <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> worc0223@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ben Hutchings) writes: >You can run MS-DOS 7 without Windows 95. Indeed. In fact, I found a customer site that's running Windows 3.1 on top of MS-DOS 7. (Don't ask me how they wound up that way.) It sure baffled an earlier version of my software, which tried to figure out whether it was running under Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 by checking the DOS version number. >>Besides, isn't any operating system that manages disks a 'disk >>operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? > >Yes, but that is not the usual meaning of DOS. Just like "symbols per second" is not the "usual" meaning of baud? People who worked with DOS/360 might take issue with you. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: "David Thompson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:35:41 -0800 Organization: WRQ Inc. Seattle, WA Lines: 39 Message-ID: <68ubjr$3jf$1@wrqnews.wrq.com> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.215.90.112 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!wrq.com!not-for-mail George Gray wrote in message <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com>... >Man!!! > >These are the types of discussions that make this newsgroup stuff worth >reading. >Now, my 2 cents worth... > >>I'll have to disagree with that. DOS and Windows are still two >>discreet entities Win95 and DOS are two entities attached at the hip via a lot of very ugly hacks called the Windows 95 kernel. Besides the obvious desire to kill all other flavors of DOS for ever, MS was forced to have 95 and DOS shipped and glued together to achieve DOS compatibility and produce preemptive multi-tasking Windows that is not a total dog on todays machines. > >If this is true, then why do I no longer have to fiddle around with >config.sys, autoexec, memmaker, emm386, etc.? My CDROM is NOT using a real >mode driver, my Zip Drive zips along without a DOS driver, my Autoexec has >two lines and they are both PATH statements and the config.sys is empty. >Just because there is a text mode command line and DOS compatibility, does >NOT mean this is simply a DOS piggyback ride. NT has a command line, you NT is a totally different animal. DOS is totally emulated by ntvdm and 16 bit Windows is emulated by wowexec. >can run some DOS software (you can even run text-mode O/S 2 1.x stuff) but I >doubt you will find DOS anywhere in the OS. If DOS were truly a separate >entity, Microsoft would have released, commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a gui >(as greedy as they are, they would have capitalized on those of us who do >not wish to be gooeyed!) Besides, isn't any operating system that manages >disks a 'disk operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? > > > ###### From: btgsch@rmplc.co.uk (ric) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:37:27 +0000 Organization: Those with six coloured blood Lines: 15 Message-ID: <1d2gbyp.iy5h7m1aealxcN@rm-dynf1-159.rmplc.co.uk> References: <882584410@k-line.org> <34A0B265.1D0741F6@uNwOaStPeArMloo.ca> <67v0fk$bv8$1@sue.cc.uregina.ca> <6813gd$30s$1@news.iastate.edu> <681gfl$cve@netaxs.com> <684vgm$ove$1@nyx.nyx.net> <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <34b1d572.459285600@news.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: rm-dynf1-151.rmplc.co.uk X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.3 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!RMplc!rmplc.co.uk!btgsch Scott Brown wrote: > I notice where you say that NT can run *some* DOS software. That > phrase really doesn't inspire confidence about NT's ability to deal > with the vast hordes of MSDOS apps that still exist. Could it be that > you need a *real* MSDOS to run MSDOS apps? Could that be why Windows > 95, with its highly-touted MSDOS capabilities, runs along with a > fully-functional MSDOS? Amusingly, I've fairly frequently had better luck running DOS based apps under NT than W95. This includes a fairly sizeable modular database program, which loads it's other executables fine under DOS or NT, but fails under 95. -- 'ric ###### From: Ben Hutchings Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 7 Jan 1998 07:49:47 -0000 Organization: Not organised Lines: 22 Sender: womble@max90.public.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: max90.public.ox.ac.uk Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!server5.netnews.ja.net!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail In article <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com>, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >In article <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> worc0223@sable.ox.ac.uk >(Ben Hutchings) writes: >>>Besides, isn't any operating system that manages disks a 'disk >>>operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? >> >>Yes, but that is not the usual meaning of DOS. > >Just like "symbols per second" is not the "usual" meaning of baud? >People who worked with DOS/360 might take issue with you. I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a generic name for a disk operating system. I'm quite aware that MS-DOS and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS". Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"? -- Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/ email/finger m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/ Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein ###### From: Nigel Williams Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 07 Jan 1998 19:44:11 +1100 Lines: 14 Sender: nigel@Xanadu Message-ID: References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.21.88 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!munnari.OZ.AU!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.carno.net.au!not-for-mail Ben Hutchings writes: > I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a > generic name for a disk operating system. I'm quite aware that MS-DOS > and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS". > Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"? DOS on the Apple ][ was just that. The thing ran great without it - you just had to use tapes. -- Nigel Williams: There is no reality - merely differing shades of perception. ###### From: "Your Name" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: 7 Jan 1998 23:44:25 GMT Organization: Tornado News Processing System Lines: 77 Message-ID: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.149.90.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!tornix.tornado.be!not-for-mail Since I come from FIDO, I always quote a remark on in the text. George Gray wrote in article <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com>... > Man!!! > > These are the types of discussions that make this newsgroup stuff worth > reading. > Now, my 2 cents worth... > > >I'll have to disagree with that. DOS and Windows are still two > >discreet entities > > If this is true, then why do I no longer have to fiddle around with > config.sys, autoexec, memmaker, emm386, etc.? The point is, If you want to use some old piece of hardware, or if you want to improve upon the operation of Windows 95, you'll have to ! > My CDROM is NOT using a real > mode driver, my Zip Drive zips along without a DOS driver, my Autoexec has > two lines and they are both PATH statements and the config.sys is empty. So, they have put all their drivers for known hardware in the Windows 95 subsystem. Still doesn't prove that DOS isn't still (under) there. > Just because there is a text mode command line and DOS compatibility, does > NOT mean this is simply a DOS piggyback ride. It is. Since you CAN start in pure DOS mode, without multi-tasking possibilities. You can't do that with NT. You can startup in text mode with OS/2 or Linux e.g., but they still retain their MT possibilities for text-mode programs. Win95 does not. > NT has a command line, NT's command line is it's own command interpreter (modelled after DOS 5, BTW, look for QBASIC in your SYSTEM-directory) but it is NOT DOS. > you can run some DOS software (you can even run text-mode O/S 2 1.x stuff) No, you can run OS/2 text mode stuff up to v 1.3. > but I doubt you will find DOS anywhere in the OS. If DOS were truly a separate > entity, Microsoft would have released, commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a gui > (as greedy as they are, they would have capitalized on those of us who do > not wish to be gooeyed!) Just do this test: Start - settings - Control Panel - add/remove programs - startup disk - create disk. Put the disk in an AT 286, or an XT (provided it has an 1.44 MB drive) ... .... and BOOT ! Then type VER. Mail me back and tell me what you saw. > Besides, isn't any operating system that manages > disks a 'disk operating system' or, more commonly, DOS? That isn't the point: MS always said that Win95 would be THE secure, stable, DOS-killing Operating System of the 90ies. According to me it is a complete rewrite and repackage of WfW 3.11 in 32-bit-programming. Still relying heavily on DOS. Greetings from Flanders Jan-80 ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:12:00 GMT Organization: . Lines: 16 Message-ID: <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-54.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail On 7 Jan 1998 07:49:47 -0000, Ben Hutchings told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that: > I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a > generic name for a disk operating system. I'm quite aware that MS-DOS > and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS". > Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"? Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning? Because I never did. -- The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox. Mail there may be read, or it may not. If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) From: mchang@jninja.com (Walkin Dude) Organization: Jewish Ninja Unlimited, Ltd. X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Lines: 9 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:13:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: tsr-out.ptd.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:13:26 EST Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!fastnet!ptdnetP!ptdnetS!newsgate.ptd.net!nnrp1.ptd.net.POSTED!not-for-mail >I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a >generic name for a disk operating system. I'm quite aware that MS-DOS >and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS". >Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"? > i dunno bout that but QDOS was "quick and dirty operating system" ###### From: Rich Franks Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 15:34:20 -0500 Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 106 Message-ID: <34B689CC.ABFD661F@ecn.purdue.edu> References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: rmf@purdue.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: shay.ecn.purdue.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6AEEDC183E507BF4E2F017F7" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.1.13.10!news1.channel1.com!news.pn.com!nntp.pn.com!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!news --------------6AEEDC183E507BF4E2F017F7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ben Hutchings wrote: > In article <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be>, > Luc Van der Veken wrote: > >On 7 Jan 1998 07:49:47 -0000, Ben Hutchings > >told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, > >that: > > > >> I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a > >> generic name for a disk operating system. I'm quite aware that MS-DOS > >> and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS". > >> Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"? > > > >Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning? > >Because I never did. > > Sure, I've heard it used as shorthand both for "Microsoft DOS" and for > "AmigaDOS" in certain contexts. I'll try to restate this one more > time: was "DOS" used as a generic name to refer to *any* disk > operating system, rather than a particular one? (I don't count MS-DOS > work-alikes separately from MS-DOS itself here.) If so, when and by > whom? > > -- > Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/ > email/finger m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/ > Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - A Einstein IBM had a Disk Operating System called DOS/360 or something like that. It came out with the first disk drives for the 360 or 370 I think. This is all from observing other discussions in this newsgroup 6 or 7 years ago. I never used it. -- Rich Franks, Systems Engineer Engineering Computer Network Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN rmf@purdue.edu --------------6AEEDC183E507BF4E2F017F7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ben Hutchings wrote:
In article <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be>,
Luc Van der Veken <lucvdv@null.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 1998 07:49:47 -0000, Ben Hutchings <worc0223@sable.ox.ac.uk>
>told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it,
>that:
>
>> I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a
>> generic name for a disk operating system.  I'm quite aware that MS-DOS
>> and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS".
>> Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"?
>
>Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning?
>Because I never did.

Sure, I've heard it used as shorthand both for "Microsoft DOS" and for
"AmigaDOS" in certain contexts.  I'll try to restate this one more
time: was "DOS" used as a generic name to refer to *any* disk
operating system, rather than a particular one?  (I don't count MS-DOS
work-alikes separately from MS-DOS itself here.)  If so, when and by
whom?

--
Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/
email/finger m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - A Einstein

IBM had a Disk Operating System called DOS/360 or something like that.
It came out with the first disk drives for the 360 or 370 I think.  This
is all from observing other discussions in this newsgroup 6 or 7 years
ago.  I never used it.



-- 
Rich Franks, Systems Engineer
Engineering Computer Network
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
rmf@purdue.edu

 

--------------6AEEDC183E507BF4E2F017F7--

######

From: Jim Lahue 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 16:36:28 -0600
Organization: RS/6000 Division, IBM
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <34B6A66C.6956@vnet.ibm.com>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk> <34B689CC.ABFD661F@ecn.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sox4.austin.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; AIX 2)
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!fox.almaden.ibm.com!mdnews.btv.ibm.com!rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail

Rich Franks wrote:

> IBM had a Disk Operating System called DOS/360 or something like that.
> It came out with the first disk drives for the 360 or 370 I think.  This
> is all from observing other discussions in this newsgroup 6 or 7 years
> ago.  I never used it.

I used a later version (DOS/VS) on a S/360 when I was in college
(late 70's). 
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jim Lahue                              | Disclaimer:  All expressed
jlahue@vnet.ibm.com                    | views are mine alone and not
RS/6000 Division, IBM Corp             | necessarily shared by IBM

######

From: daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: 10 Jan 1998 01:47:12 GMT
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <696jv0$lh1$1@news.cadence.com>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cds9172.cadence.com
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!131.103.1.114!news1.chicago.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!199.0.154.56!ais.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!news.cadence.com!cds9172.Cadence.COM!daled

In article <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk>, Ben Hutchings
 writes:
|> In article <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be>,
|> Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
|> >On 7 Jan 1998 07:49:47 -0000, Ben Hutchings 
|> >told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it,
|> >that:
|> >
|> >> I think I was correct in saying that DOS is not usually used as a
|> >> generic name for a disk operating system.  I'm quite aware that MS-DOS
|> >> and its clones are not the only products that have been called "DOS".
|> >> Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"?
|> 
|> Sure, I've heard it used as shorthand both for "Microsoft DOS" and for
|> "AmigaDOS" in certain contexts.  I'll try to restate this one more
|> time: was "DOS" used as a generic name to refer to *any* disk
|> operating system, rather than a particular one?  (I don't count MS-DOS
|> work-alikes separately from MS-DOS itself here.)  If so, when and by
|> whom?

IBM coined the word for a Disk Operating System on the Model 360 in the
sixties.  It was an outgrowth of earlier TOS (Tape Operating System).
The bigger operating system came to be call OS/360 or just OS to distinguish
it from DOS.  Dos ran on model 20's, 30's and 40's in most shops while
OS ran on 50's, 65's and up.  By the way this dos was multitasking
in that it had 2 background jobs and 1 foreground job.  The foreground
job ran until it was waiting for something and then one of the background
jobs ran until the foreground job received whatever it was waiting for.

-- 
    _      _     Dale DePriest  		San Jose, California
   /`) _  //     daled@Cadence.COM		voice: (408) 428-5249
 o/_/ (_(_X_(`	 ISO 9000 Program Manager	fax: (408) 894-3484

######

From: William.Hamblen@nashville.com (William Hamblen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:15:41 GMT
Organization: Utterly Disorganized
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <34b5a125.984976@news.nashville.com>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be>
Reply-To: William.Hamblen@nashville.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 21346@207.65.180.91
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail

On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:12:00 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
wrote:

>> Did "DOS" (alone) ever mean just "disk operating system"?
>
>Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning?
>Because I never did.

Two in Spanish.

######

From: "George Gray" 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:29:41 -0500
Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <698q95$3uo@world6.bellatlantic.net>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk> <34B689CC.ABFD661F@ecn.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20934060.bellatlantic.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!howland.erols.net!world6.bellatlantic.net!news

I remember my early Apple ][ days, we called the disk system 'dos' although
it really was not a real operating system, just extensions to the built-in
system rom (which was mostly Applesoft Basic and the system 'monitor').  I
also recall that several companies, including Radio Shack, referred to the
disk operating software as 'dos.'  Triss-dos (TRS DOS) was most common for
the TRS-80 systems as well as CP/M being called 'dos' by many
people/companies (I think Altair called it dos for awhile.)  Correct me if I
am wrong...

######

From: Robert Billing 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 98 09:26:22 GMT
Message-ID: <884510782snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <6944bg$425$1@max55.public.ox.ac.uk> <34B689CC.ABFD661F@ecn.purdue.edu> <34B6A66C.6956@vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-Path: post-20.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 884515857 27460 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 20
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!204.186.0.13.MISMATCH!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!fastnet!howland.erols.net!recycled.news.erols.com!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob

In article <34B6A66C.6956@vnet.ibm.com> jlahue@vnet.ibm.com "Jim Lahue" writes:

> I used a later version (DOS/VS) on a S/360 when I was in college
> (late 70's). 

 There was also a PDP-11 DOS, which was just called DOS. It went from
V8.2 to about V10.1 while I was using it, then RSX came along

 F342 000000
 F344 000000

should raise some nostalgia...

-- 
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N.  http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"

######

From: Max F Lang 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:02:02 -0500
Organization: Home Computing
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <34B995BA.8EC0FBC0@bellsouth.net>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <34b5a125.984976@news.nashville.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host-209-138-2-143.mco.bellsouth.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!atl.bellsouth.net!news.mem.bellsouth.net!news.mco.bellsouth.net!not-for-mail

William Hamblen wrote:
> >Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning?
> >Because I never did.
> 
> Two in Spanish.

"of the" (masculine plural) in Portuguese, but that's goint too far...
:-)

-- 
/\/\ax |_ang,            ...persuing cutting-edge research into the
budding Unix guru.       burgeoning field of Linux-induced insomnia!
     -x-x-x-Micro$loth or Linux: Hey, it's your computer!-x-x-x-

######

From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:12:53 GMT
Organization: .
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <34ba561d.497915@news.innet.be>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <68sbh9$24u$1@max97.public.ox.ac.uk> <820.310T46T6383067@sky.bus.com> <68vc2r$v5$1@max90.public.ox.ac.uk> <34b516fb.1124316@news.innet.be> <34b5a125.984976@news.nashville.com> <34B995BA.8EC0FBC0@bellsouth.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-46.innet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!158.43.192.17!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail

On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:02:02 -0500, Max F Lang 
told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it,
that:

> William Hamblen wrote:
> > >Let's reverse the question: did you ever hear of an *other* meaning?
> > >Because I never did.
> > 
> > Two in Spanish.
> 
> "of the" (masculine plural) in Portuguese, but that's goint too far...
> :-)

And I could have thought of "back" in French myself (as in 'my back',
not 'he is back'). OTOH, I don't grow a computer there, so this kind
of 'dos' has nothing to do with those.

-- 
The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox.
Mail there may be read, or it may not.
If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be

######

From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:12:32 GMT
Organization: .
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-44.innet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail

On 7 Jan 1998 23:44:25 GMT, "Your Name"  told the
world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:

> George Gray  wrote in article
> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com>...
> > These are the types of discussions that make this newsgroup stuff worth
> > reading.
> > Now, my 2 cents worth...
> > 
> > >I'll have to disagree with that.  DOS and Windows are still two
> > >discreet entities
> > 
> > If this is true, then why do I no longer have to fiddle around with
> > config.sys, autoexec, memmaker, emm386, etc.?  
> 
> The point is, If you want to use some old piece of hardware, or if you want
> to improve upon the operation of Windows 95, you'll have to !

Another fact is, that win95 supports more devices (natively) than any
other OS at the moment (except for DOS maybe).

> > My CDROM is NOT using a real
> > mode driver, my Zip Drive zips along without a DOS driver, my Autoexec
> has
> > two lines and they are both PATH statements and the config.sys is empty.
> 
> So, they have put all their drivers for known hardware in the Windows 95
> subsystem. Still doesn't prove that DOS isn't still (under) there.

Right.

> > Just because there is a text mode command line and DOS compatibility,
> does
> > NOT mean this is simply a DOS piggyback ride.  
> 
> It is. Since you CAN start in pure DOS mode, without multi-tasking
> possibilities. You can't do that with NT. You can startup in text mode with
> OS/2 or Linux e.g., but they still retain their MT possibilities for
> text-mode programs. Win95 does not.

You can start Linux (or any unix) in single-user mode. Does that mean
that unix is in fact a multi-user operating system, piggy-backed on a
single user one?

Consider this:
- when you boot into DOS7, you don't have long filename support -
because the DOS kernel doesn't support that.
COMMAND.COM *has* long filename support, *if* it is run under the
win95 kernel.
How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
has to support lfns?

- win3 had poor multitasking, because it partially relied on DOS code,
which isn't made for that. Most part of the DOS kernel is not
reentrant, which would be a requirement for real multitasking.
How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
even remotely attempts to do preemptive multitasking?

> > NT has a command line, 
> 
> NT's command line is it's own command interpreter (modelled after DOS 5,
> BTW, look for QBASIC in your SYSTEM-directory) but it is NOT DOS.

Just like win95's command line is made capable of running under two
different systems. COMMAND may have the file extension .COM, but
that's only because of backward compatibility with programs that
assume it has - internally it's an EXE file (and even before win95,
the OS saw the difference between these two in the file's contents,
and not in the filename.) Just have a look at it with a hex editor or
lister, you'll see the Mark Zbykowsky (4D 5A) header.
Like any windows EXE file, it has two entry points: one for DOS use,
and one for WINDOWS use. Most programs just say "this program requires
m$ windows" when you try to use the DOS entry point, and quit.
COMMAND sets a flag so it can remember not to use long filenames and
not to use WIN95's (native) system calls, and then starts on.
Try clicking the 'X' button at the right hand top of a DOS window,
when it's at the command prompt. COMMAND will exit, and the window
will close. Try the same with any DOS app: win95 will refuse to close
the window, because it can't tell the program it has to shut down -
DOS didn't have any means of doing that, it was introduced with
windows.

Conclusion: even DOS7's COMMAND.COM is actually not a DOS application,
but a windows console mode application made fit to run under DOS also.

> > you can run some DOS software (you can even run text-mode O/S 2 1.x
> stuff) 
> 
> No, you can run OS/2 text mode stuff up to v 1.3.
> 
> > but I doubt you will find DOS anywhere in the OS.  If DOS were truly a
> separate
> > entity, Microsoft would have released, commercially, MS-DOS 7 without a
> gui
> > (as greedy as they are, they would have capitalized on those of us who do
> > not wish to be gooeyed!) 

No, as greedy as they are, they surely would *not* have done that.
Imagine MS selling DOS to a customer, if they can try to sell him
windows for at least double the price.

> Just do this test:
> 
> Start - settings - Control Panel - add/remove programs - startup disk -
> create disk.
> 
> Put the disk in an AT 286, or an XT (provided it has an 1.44 MB drive) ...
> 
> ... and BOOT !
> 
> Then type VER.
> 
> Mail me back and tell me what you saw.

I hope a posted reply will do? ;)
You don't even have to make a boot disk, just use F8 and boot in DOS
mode.
This proves that DOS and windows coexist. *Besides* each other, not
necessarily one on top of the other.

> > Besides, isn't any operating system that manages
> > disks a 'disk operating system' or, more commonly, DOS?
> 
> That isn't the point: MS always said that Win95 would be THE secure,
> stable, DOS-killing Operating System of the 90ies. According to me it is a
> complete rewrite and repackage of WfW 3.11 in 32-bit-programming. Still
> relying heavily on DOS.

I agree completely up to the second period (the third, if you include
the one in 3.11.)
I would agree with the rest, if you said something like "with DOS
functionality rewritten into it".

The only thing I must admit (it being also the main reason why most
people will keep believing that win runs on top of DOS), is that some
real-mode code is kept active if it has to provide support for devices
that don't come with a 32 bit driver. The fact that the system has to
switch back and forth between protected and real mode not only slows
down those devices, but everything else in the process (to a
noticeable degree, as became clear on my own system after I removed
the last one of them).

Read the resource kit (it's on the CD), it contains a chapter
(well,... a page) on re-used code, and much more interesting stuff
besides that.
It's MS-biased of course, but they even admit they re-used some win3
code.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that all 16-bit code is not
stopped if there are no such devices.

> Greetings from Flanders
> Jan-80

Greetings from Flanders to you too.
Luc.

-- 
The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox.
Mail there may be read, or it may not.
If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be

######

From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Message-ID: 
Date: 14 Jan 98 04:26:12 MDT
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be>
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 33
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!ivie

In article <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes:
> - when you boot into DOS7, you don't have long filename support -
> because the DOS kernel doesn't support that.
> COMMAND.COM *has* long filename support, *if* it is run under the
> win95 kernel.
> How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
> has to support lfns?

You might take a look at what's going on with OpenDOS. There's a TSR
available that handles long filenames; I've not played with it, so I don't
know exactly how invasive it is, but I gather from the discussions on the
OpenDOS mailing lists that it does not replace the entire kernel filesystem
handling code.

> - win3 had poor multitasking, because it partially relied on DOS code,
> which isn't made for that. Most part of the DOS kernel is not
> reentrant, which would be a requirement for real multitasking.
> How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
> even remotely attempts to do preemptive multitasking?

Ah, but with V86 mode you _could_ run multiple copies of DOS in their own
private computer. Add a network redirector to deal with shared filesystems
and voila! preemptive multitasking of a non-reentrant OS.

> I'm still waiting for someone to prove that all 16-bit code is not
> stopped if there are no such devices.

Find a copy of "Unauthorized Windows95".
-- 
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie               | Impeach Bob Palmer!
ivie@cc.usu.edu          |
http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |

######

From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:16:06 GMT
Organization: .
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <34bdf5e7.3096550@news.innet.be>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-48.innet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.nodak.edu!netnews3.nwnet.net!netnews.nwnet.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!158.43.192.17!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail

On 14 Jan 98 04:26:12 MDT, ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) told the
world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:

> In article <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes:
> > - when you boot into DOS7, you don't have long filename support -
> > because the DOS kernel doesn't support that.
> > COMMAND.COM *has* long filename support, *if* it is run under the
> > win95 kernel.
> > How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
> > has to support lfns?
> 
> You might take a look at what's going on with OpenDOS. There's a TSR
> available that handles long filenames; I've not played with it, so I don't
> know exactly how invasive it is, but I gather from the discussions on the
> OpenDOS mailing lists that it does not replace the entire kernel filesystem
> handling code.

Somehow, I find this hard to believe.
Not that it can't be done (with just a little sacrifice of speed) - it
wouldn't even be very hard to provide a front end to all file-related
system calls to translate long filenames into their 8.3 counterparts,
but where would all these long filenames come from?
In the end, I suppose openDOS is there to run DOS applications, and I
don't know any of that are lfn-aware. How often would such a program
work correctly when it is fed long filenames, while it expects 8.3
with spaces as delimiters between parameters, instead of in the
filenames?

Now if only microsoft *would* have done it this way: we'd no longer
have to watch out that we don't rename or move any files while booted
in DOS mode.

> > - win3 had poor multitasking, because it partially relied on DOS code,
> > which isn't made for that. Most part of the DOS kernel is not
> > reentrant, which would be a requirement for real multitasking.
> > How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
> > even remotely attempts to do preemptive multitasking?
> 
> Ah, but with V86 mode you _could_ run multiple copies of DOS in their own
> private computer. Add a network redirector to deal with shared filesystems
> and voila! preemptive multitasking of a non-reentrant OS.

But that's DOS running on top of another system (*something* has to
start the V86 virtual machines.)
I thought we were discussing whether it's done the other way around.

> > I'm still waiting for someone to prove that all 16-bit code is not
> > stopped if there are no such devices.
> 
> Find a copy of "Unauthorized Windows95".

I heard a lot of good things about it, and even saw a couple of quotes
(in the same kind of "is win95 dos" discussions.)
Maybe it's just bad luck that I missed them, but so far none of these
quotes sounded like "and here is inevitable evidence that..."

I have, for some time now, been thinking about finding a way to prove
that the 16-bit DOS code is kept active when it's not necessary (or to
prove the opposite - but it would have to be something that is
acceptable as proof to both parties in this discussion.)
The first approach one thinks of is writing a TSR that checks some
system memory location for activity - but then the 16 bit system would
be kept active just because that TSR is loaded.
Anyone got a better suggestion?
A win32 application to monitor the first physical MB of memory? I'm
not that much of a vxd-and-alike programmer myself, so...

Secondly: what memory location? Dont talk about the tick count,
because win95 may very well update it itself, to make DOS mode apps in
virtual machines start off with the right value (I heard that the
first physical 640k of memory are just plain copied into a virtual
machine's memory when it is started.)
The InDos flag perhaps?

-- 
The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox.
Mail there may be read, or it may not.
If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be

######

From: brett.leach.pepperpot@visionet.com.au (Brett Leach)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:11:41 +1100
Organization: 
Lines: 22
Message-ID: 
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: vd200021b.belrose.visionet.com.au
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v1.01
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!news.optus.net.au!news00.visionet.com.au!not-for-mail

In article <34bbe7a1.1209260@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der 
Veken) writes:

> - win3 had poor multitasking, because it partially relied on DOS code,
> which isn't made for that. Most part of the DOS kernel is not
> reentrant, which would be a requirement for real multitasking.
> How much DOS kernel code do you think would be usable in a system that
> even remotely attempts to do preemptive multitasking?

Win95 has poor multitasking of 16 bit wondows code, as to all intents and 
purposes it runs a copy of win3.1 to execute them.

> I'm still waiting for someone to prove that all 16-bit code is not
> stopped if there are no such devices.

It aint, it remains to allow execution of 16 bit code.
  ____
 /    \      Remove ".pepperpot" to reply
 \____|      via E-Mail to this post.
 /    |       
(     |    |  
 \____ \__/  Leach.  My brain hurts.

######

From: root@localhost
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 00:25:25 GMT
Message-ID: <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk [158.152.238.104]
X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.09.2
Lines: 30
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lisardrock.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail



On 1998-01-07 LoginID@tornado.be said:
   -That isn't the point: MS always said that Win95 would be THE secure,
   -stable, DOS-killing Operating System of the 90ies. According to me
   -it is a complete rewrite and repackage of WfW 3.11 in
   -32-bit-programming. Still relying heavily on DOS.

hello flanders. :>

it's not even a rewrite. that entirity of 16-bit windows is still in
there! we discovered that the other day when we started playing with
various bits... in fact, win95 is basically win3.11 (well, maybe up a
notch) plus COM plus win32 plus long file names plus fancy new screen
appearance minus the stability that comes from only running one
operating system at once.

it would have been more honest just to call it win4.

and all that crap about pre-emptive multitasking... yeah, sure, just
don't use any 16 bit apps. otherwise the pre-emptive bit is pre-empted
by the 16-bit os code.

we hate win95. it's a kludge.


-- Communa (Communa@lisardrock.demon.net)
Don't just blindly reply.  You'll talk to your sysop.

Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Test Drive

######

From: afcasta@texas.net (Al Castanoli)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
References: <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>
X-no-archive: yes
Organization: BagEnd Pixel Remodellers LTD
Message-ID: 
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.3.2 UNIX)
Lines: 18
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:27:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: dnet01-14.sat.texas.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:27:35 CST
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!nntp.texas.net!typhoon.texas.net!not-for-mail

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:06:54 GMT, Luc Van der Veken  wrote 
in article <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>:

[...]

:It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
:commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
:7 word 97, they called it windows 95.

I still have a copy of MS Office 4.3 to run under WABI, and the version
of Word in that is 6.0a - The Word in MS Office 95 was Word 7.  Word 6
will run under WABI, but Word 7 will not.

-- 
Al Castanoli | home - afcasta@texas.net | work - afcasta@aia.af.mil
             | alternates - afn22800@afn.org & ah446@rgfn.epcc.edu
     Computers save time like kudzu prevents soil erosion.

######

From: Pete Fenelon 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS
Date: 18 Jan 1998 17:41:30 GMT
Organization: home
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: man-168.dialup.zetnet.co.uk
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980105 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.30 (i486))
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews.ftech.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!fenelon.zetnet.co.uk!pete

Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
> It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
> commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
> 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.

Wrong. Word 6 was a product in its own right -- a bit of a mis-judged
one, at that. It unified Word version numbers across Mac, Windows and
DOS, and tried to unify feature sets, but failed.  (Windows was at 2.0c,
DOS was at 5.something, as was Mac, but they were all different code-bases
and feature sets). 

I seem to recall that Word 6 was *going* to be the first version to support
VBA. Chuckle. 

Word 7 was Word 95; Word 97 is 8.something.

pete
-- 
Pete Fenelon ("There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas")
pete@fenelon.zetnet.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/petef/
3 Beckside Gardens, Melrosegate, York, Y01 3TX +44 1904 438472

######

From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:25:22 GMT
Organization: .
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <34c268ec.443864@news.innet.be>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-51.innet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news.igateway.net!news.cwi.net!news1.channel1.com!news.pn.com!nntp.pn.com!news-feeder.onramp.net!nntp.flash.net!204.186.0.134.MISMATCH!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail

On 18 Jan 1998 17:41:30 GMT, Pete Fenelon 
told the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it,
that:

> Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
> > It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
> > commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
> > 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.
> 
> Wrong. Word 6 was a product in its own right -- a bit of a mis-judged
> one, at that. It unified Word version numbers across Mac, Windows and
> DOS, and tried to unify feature sets, but failed.  (Windows was at 2.0c,
> DOS was at 5.something, as was Mac, but they were all different code-bases
> and feature sets). 
> 
> I seem to recall that Word 6 was *going* to be the first version to support
> VBA. Chuckle. 
> 
> Word 7 was Word 95; Word 97 is 8.something.

Oops. Off by one - bad initialisation probably.

-- 
The address in the "from" field is a real address, used as a spambox.
Mail there may be read, or it may not.
If you want to be sure, replace the domain by innet.be

######

From: Ben Hutchings 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS
Date: 18 Jan 1998 22:57:13 -0000
Organization: Not organised
Lines: 23
Sender: womble@max65.public.ox.ac.uk
Message-ID: <69u1c9$evf$1@max65.public.ox.ac.uk>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: max65.public.ox.ac.uk
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!feed.newsreader.com!news.misty.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news-xfer.mccc.edu!pallol.usenet.co.uk!usenet.co.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail

In article <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>,
Pete Fenelon   wrote:
>Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
>> It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
>> commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
>> 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.
>
>Wrong. Word 6 was a product in its own right -- a bit of a mis-judged
>one, at that. It unified Word version numbers across Mac, Windows and
>DOS, and tried to unify feature sets, but failed.  (Windows was at 2.0c,
>DOS was at 5.something, as was Mac, but they were all different code-bases
>and feature sets). 

Really?  Word 6 for Windows is quite nice (even on a 386DX), while the
Mac version is extremely slow and unstable (on a PowerMac).  It seemed
to me that Word 6 for Mac was an appallingly bad port of the Windows
version.  I don't know about the DOS version... that got killed off
immediately afterwards.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/
email/finger m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.

######

Message-ID: <34C2F385.757@sgi.net>
From: Adam Stouffer 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 06:27:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-s2w1p02.monroe.sgi.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:27:37 EST
X-MD5: 900e8bba2c8f2774cdf1dbd7e00184db
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.219.14.11!CTCnet!pitt.edu!dsinc!nntp.upenn.edu!msunews!agate!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer.visi.net!newsfeed.sgi.net!news.sgi.net!not-for-mail

> 
> The solution is simple: reformat your harddisk and install a better
> OS.

like Linux


Adam

######

From: Karthik Sheka 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:25:58 -0500
Organization: Physicians Online (via bigfoot.com)
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <6a0rdq$1mi@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
References: <882584410@k-line.org> <34A0B265.1D0741F6@uNwOaStPeArMloo.ca> <67v0fk$bv8$1@sue.cc.uregina.ca> <6813gd$30s$1@news.iastate.edu> <681gfl$cve@netaxs.com> <684vgm$ove$1@nyx.nyx.net> <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <69u1c9$evf$1@max65.public.ox.ac.uk> <1d33kwx.1um0ybzy0eikeN@rm-dynf1-141.rmplc.co.uk>
Reply-To: K.P.Sheka@bigfoot.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.128.36
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!newsadm

> Ben Hutchings  wrote:
>
> > In article <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>,
> > Pete Fenelon   wrote:
> > >Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
> > >> It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
> > >> commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
> > >> 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.
> > >
> > >Wrong. Word 6 was a product in its own right -- a bit of a mis-judged
> > >one, at that. It unified Word version numbers across Mac, Windows and
> > >DOS, and tried to unify feature sets, but failed.  (Windows was at 2.0c,
> > >DOS was at 5.something, as was Mac, but they were all different code-bases
> > >and feature sets).
> >
> > Really?  Word 6 for Windows is quite nice (even on a 386DX), while the
> > Mac version is extremely slow and unstable (on a PowerMac).  It seemed
> > to me that Word 6 for Mac was an appallingly bad port of the Windows
> > version.  I don't know about the DOS version... that got killed off
> > immediately afterwards.

I agree about MS-Word 6 on the PC.  I found it very stable and ran on a small
footprint.  I still use it on my 386-20 with 8 megs ram running Win3.11.  I was
especially surprised at how responsive it was on that system, since back then I
equated GUI word processing programs as unusable on the PC platform.

//Bobby

######

From: btgsch@rmplc.co.uk (ric)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:08:49 +0000
Organization: Those with six coloured blood
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <1d33kwx.1um0ybzy0eikeN@rm-dynf1-141.rmplc.co.uk>
References: <882584410@k-line.org> <34A0B265.1D0741F6@uNwOaStPeArMloo.ca> <67v0fk$bv8$1@sue.cc.uregina.ca> <6813gd$30s$1@news.iastate.edu> <681gfl$cve@netaxs.com> <684vgm$ove$1@nyx.nyx.net> <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <34aad00b.3713977@news.innet.be> <01bd13f0$e44cf750$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1> <34ac14bc.2323246@news.innet.be> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com> <34ac177a.3868326@news.innet.be> <34ac89bc.112171881@news.xmission.com> <68sarv$hah@world1.bawave.com> <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <69u1c9$evf$1@max65.public.ox.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rm-dynf1-141.rmplc.co.uk
X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.3
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!Aladdin!aladdin.net!ns2.aladdin.net!RMplc!rmplc.co.uk!btgsch

Ben Hutchings  wrote:

> In article <69tesa$dhl$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk>,
> Pete Fenelon   wrote:
> >Luc Van der Veken  wrote:
> >> It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
> >> commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
> >> 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.
> >
> >Wrong. Word 6 was a product in its own right -- a bit of a mis-judged
> >one, at that. It unified Word version numbers across Mac, Windows and
> >DOS, and tried to unify feature sets, but failed.  (Windows was at 2.0c,
> >DOS was at 5.something, as was Mac, but they were all different code-bases
> >and feature sets). 
> 
> Really?  Word 6 for Windows is quite nice (even on a 386DX), while the
> Mac version is extremely slow and unstable (on a PowerMac).  It seemed
> to me that Word 6 for Mac was an appallingly bad port of the Windows
> version.  I don't know about the DOS version... that got killed off
> immediately afterwards.


It appears that word6 on the Mac was essentially a recompiled Word6 from
the PC with a wrapper to translate system calls appropriately. Strangely
enough, it's been dire. On the bright side, I've just had a play with a
beta of Word98 on a Mac, and for the first time in ages, it actually
makes me think about buying the upgrade, it is relatively pleasant to
use.

-- 
'ric

######

From: spam@lisardrock.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:59:43 GMT
Message-ID: <885254383.5398.1.nnrp-01.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk [158.152.238.104]
X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.09.2
Lines: 72
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lisardrock.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail



On 1998-01-18 lucvdv@null.net(LucVanderVeken) said:
   -On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 00:25:25 GMT, root@localhost told the world, or
   -rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:
   -> it's not even a rewrite. that entirity of 16-bit windows is still
   ->in  there! we discovered that the other day when we started
   ->playing with  various bits... in fact, win95 is basically win3.11
   ->(well, maybe up a

   -Which bits?

ooh let's see... well, for a start, despite the "better" ways to do
things, there is *still* the complete suite of win3 system utilities
(program manager, winfile - check this out! doesn't even do long
filenames!, object packager, and the 16-bit user.exe, gdi.exe and
kernel.exe that are *always* loaded, even when you only run 32-bit apps
- use ms sysinfo to check); then there is the problem of the
disappearing 32-bit capabilities (like every time you start up a big 16
bit app)

   -> notch) plus COM plus win32 plus long file names plus fancy new
   ->screen appearance minus the stability that comes from only
   ->running one operating system at once.

   -You seem to forget that it is far more stable than windows 3 was.
   -People seem to have such short memories, lately.

ahem. we resent that, considering we were up to three crashes a day with
win4 at one point. granted, win3 was even worse, and they really did
need to fix the resource problem (which they seem to have done) but "far
more stable" is pushing it, really.

   -> it would have been more honest just to call it win4.

   -It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
   -commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called
   -word 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.

we know. and honesty and marketing have never gone together. perhaps we
should have said "win 3.2"?

   -> and all that crap about pre-emptive multitasking... yeah, sure,
   ->just don't use any 16 bit apps. otherwise the pre-emptive bit is
   ->pre-empted by the 16-bit os code.

   -> we hate win95. it's a kludge.

   -The solution is simple: reformat your harddisk and install a better
   -OS.

the solution is *not* simple, when you consider we have to use win95 at
work. at home we use dos. it's not better, not by any stretch of
imagination, but it does stay out of our way, and we're saving up for a
cd-rom and a copy of redhat.

oh, and we night be able to "go linux" at work, too - there are a couple
of machines sitting around running it very happily indeed.

   -> -- Communa (Communa@lisardrock.demon.net)
   -> Don't just blindly reply.  You'll talk to your sysop.

   -No, you won't.

*sigh* picky, picky... what would *you* have said in one 64-character
line then?


-- Communa - all at lisardrock.demon.net
     to be sure we read your reply, send to username `communa'

Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Test Drive

######

From: newcomer@flounder.com (Joseph M. Newcomer)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 22:29:29 GMT
Organization: Pittsburgh OnLine, Inc.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <34d424f3.9180450@206.210.64.12>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp14.s8.pgh.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!howland.erols.net!fastnet!news.pgh.net!not-for-mail

Check out Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95".  He shows all
the DOS crud and cruft in exquisite detail.

Real Programmers use NT.
				joe

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 00:25:25 GMT, root@localhost wrote:

>
>
>On 1998-01-07 LoginID@tornado.be said:
>   -That isn't the point: MS always said that Win95 would be THE secure,
>   -stable, DOS-killing Operating System of the 90ies. According to me
>   -it is a complete rewrite and repackage of WfW 3.11 in
>   -32-bit-programming. Still relying heavily on DOS.
>
>hello flanders. :>
>
>it's not even a rewrite. that entirity of 16-bit windows is still in
>there! we discovered that the other day when we started playing with
>various bits... in fact, win95 is basically win3.11 (well, maybe up a
>notch) plus COM plus win32 plus long file names plus fancy new screen
>appearance minus the stability that comes from only running one
>operating system at once.
>
>it would have been more honest just to call it win4.
>
>and all that crap about pre-emptive multitasking... yeah, sure, just
>don't use any 16 bit apps. otherwise the pre-emptive bit is pre-empted
>by the 16-bit os code.
>
>we hate win95. it's a kludge.
>
>
>-- Communa (Communa@lisardrock.demon.net)
>Don't just blindly reply.  You'll talk to your sysop.
>
>Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Test Drive

Joseph M. Newcomer
newcomer@flounder.com
http://www3.pgh.net/~newcomer

######

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: "Ralph Wade Phillips" 
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.172.150.50
Message-ID: <01bd2618$64d98710$3296ac81@nt_srvr_1>
Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:56:24 GMT
Lines: 26
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsrelay.netins.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp

Hi there!


(stuff deleted for bandwidth preservation ... )

> 
> You seem to forget that it is far more stable than windows 3 was.
> People seem to have such short memories, lately.

	Not for everyone.  I have MORE crashes with the Win95 boxen I maintain
than with the Win3.1 boxes I maintain.  'Course, that COULD be because of
the AutoCAD/Photoshop/Pagemaker/Word 9x/Internet Explorer simultaneously on
16meg RAM that my customers insist on ...  
> > it would have been more honest just to call it win4.
> 
> It *is* called windows version 4.0 internally, but just like the
> commercial department gave word 6 the nickname word 95 and called word
> 7 word 97, they called it windows 95.

	Err ... To correct, Word 7 was nicknamed Word 95, and Word 8 was renamed
Word 97.

	RwP

######

From: spam@lisardrock.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:59:53 GMT
Message-ID: <885412793.20488.0.nnrp-09.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <34c4db24.687194@news.innet.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lisardrock.demon.co.uk [158.152.238.104]
X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.09.2
Lines: 138
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lisardrock.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail



On 1998-01-20 lucvdv@null.net(LucVanderVeken) said:
   -And again I'm way off topic in this ng...

shouldn't worry. the message, not the medium, is important.

   -On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:59:43 GMT, spam@lisardrock.demon.co.uk told
   -the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:
   -

   -> ooh let's see... well, for a start, despite the "better" ways to
   ->do  things, there is *still* the complete suite of win3 system
   ->utilities  (program manager, winfile - check this out! doesn't
   ->even do long  filenames!, object packager, and the 16-bit user.exe,
   ->gdi.exe and  kernel.exe that are *always* loaded, even when you
   ->only run 32-bit apps  - use ms sysinfo to check); then there is
   ->the problem of the  disappearing 32-bit capabilities (like every
   ->time you start up a big 16  bit app)

   -If I said somewhere that I have yet to see proof that 16-bit code is
   -running inside win95 (and I have said that), I must take my words
   -back. The only excuse I can bring up is that I was thinking of
   -real-mode [DOS] code that was kept running unnecessarily - which I
   -still have to see.

ah... well, win3.11 only calls dos when it has to too, we believe; does
that make win3.11 a "genuine" proteected-mode system...? doubt it.

   -As for the system utilities: utilities are programs that are
   -delivered *with* an OS, but they are not *part* of it. Example: the
   -korn shell is a unix shell (thus even half a step higher than a
   -utility), but there's a DOS port of it also - which has *nothing at
   -all* to do with unix. Another example: aside from the winfile you
   -mention, I've seen or heard of at least half a dozen shareware
   -winfile replacements. They are as much part of the OS as winfile
   -itself.

yes, we know we know. ok, ignore the bits you don't agree with. the crux
of the matter is that side-by-side with the 32-bit versions of user.exe,
kernel.exe and gdi.exe are the 16-bit versions, and we have every reason
to believe that the 16-bit versions are actually the boot-up ones. they
come first in the system lists, for a start.

   -Winfile is provided win 95 (at least I thought it was) only for
   -backward compatibility with older programs that expect it to be
   -there, and that expect it to look exactly like it does.

such as..? in such cases, aren't those programs treating it as an
integral part of the os? and *why* can't it handle long filenames???

the long filenames are a retrofit. *they* are added extensions, rather
than the shortened "squiggly" versions being retained for backward
compatibility. even some 32-bit apps can be caught out on that issue,
and if you look at the directory structure low-level, it's there for all
to see.

   -Kernel.exe etc.: the files are there, but I doubt that they are just
   -copies or recompiles of the 3.x versions. It sounds more likely to
   -me, that new versions were made (interfacing old apps to the 32bit
   -kernel), using the old names.

well, it would be a little silly not to make new versions; but why were
they then not integrated into the "real" 32-bit versions? and why do
they have such an influence over the boot process?

   -I finally ordered "Unauthorized Windows 95", maybe reading that will
   -convince me.

doubtless that puts it better, and in more detail, than we can. remember
we can't pull our work system to pieces (although just doing things like
installing and deinstalling software seems to do that quite well enough
without our intervention).

   -> ahem. we resent that, considering we were up to three crashes a
   ->day with  win4 at one point. granted, win3 was even worse, and
   ->they really did  need to fix the resource problem (which they seem
   ->to have done) but "far  more stable" is pushing it, really.

   -I think that, at three crashes a day, it's time to give your system
   -a good check-up. And don't only look at MS-made components, but
   -take a good look at *everything* that's loaded at startup.

*nothing* in our system is loaded at startup. we made sure of that.
funnily enough, we get the most stability when we're running 16 bit
applications. it's the 32-bit stuff that falls over with monotonous
regularity. (and we've had to reinstall windows at least once in the
last few months.)

that say something...? :>

   -Ofcourse you know that this should *not* be limited to the 'startup'
   -folder in your start menu - that's where the innocent ones are
   -found.

look, we're using a pretty tame combination of elements. the most
controversial thing on our system is probably TweakUI. the browser is
ie3.02 (we need it for current software development). other than that,
we normally only have a text editor and ms mail going at once.

   -Far more stable means, in my case, that my main PC (used fairly
   -intensive for 6 to 8 hours/day) hasn't crashed on me ONCE in at
   -least six months.

lucky you.

   -I use that PC to develop software in VC++ 5 (and 4 before that) and
   -VB 5 (4 before that).

strange. we use only access 2 and ie3.02's javascript engine. what are
we doing that's questionable..?

   -The only times when I had to reboot, were when my app under
   -development hung in a system thread and had to be ctrl-alt-delled,
   -and the OS somehow forgot to close the files it had open at the
   -time, refusing me access to them on the next try.

oh, that's somewhat regular. so much for COM's garbage collection.

   -IE4 is installed also, ever since it came out (hasn't crashed on me
   -once yet - at least on that specific machine ;)

we found ie4 was actually pretty stable.

   -In those days it was always the third party program supplier that
   -was blamed for the incompatibility - nowadays it's MS that's blamed
   -for everything that happens under win95 and NT.

when we're only using ms software - or at least, when we're only using
ms software at the time it crashes (and we're quite sick of bringing the
entire system to a halt with a game of solitaire, ferchrissakes!) - it
seems a little daft to look around for other companies to blame.


-- Communa - all at lisardrock.demon.net
     to be sure we read your reply, send to username `communa'

Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Test Drive

######

From: cbh@REMOVE_THIS.teabag.demon.co.uk (Chris Hedley)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: 23 Jan 1998 10:44:03 GMT
Organization: teabag
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <6a9s9j$1bj$5@vodka.tnx.djmarkets.co.uk>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be>
    <885083125.5471.5.nnrp-06.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk>
    <34d424f3.9180450@206.210.64.12>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!Aladdin!aladdin.net!ns2.aladdin.net!vodka.tnx.djmarkets.co.uk!not-for-mail

In article <34d424f3.9180450@206.210.64.12>,
	newcomer@flounder.com (Joseph M. Newcomer) writes:
> Real Programmers use NT.

Now there's an invitation for a religious war if ever I've seen one!

Chris.

######

From: Robert Billing 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 15:15:22 GMT
Message-ID: <885568522snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <6a9s9j$1bj$5@vodka.tnx.djmarkets.co.uk>
Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-Path: post-10.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 885639340 21259 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 25
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob

In article <6a9s9j$1bj$5@vodka.tnx.djmarkets.co.uk>
           cbh@REMOVE_THIS.teabag.demon.co.uk "Chris Hedley" writes:

> > Real Programmers use NT.
> 
> Now there's an invitation for a religious war if ever I've seen one!

 Incidentally, there seems to be some debate over what NT actually
stands for. Some suggestions are:

  No Thanks
  Nice Try
  Needs Testing

and referring to how long it takes to install

  Next Thursday.

-- 
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N.  http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"

######

Path: ccw.ch!usenet
From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: 25 Jan 1998 23:58:25 +0100
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: <01bd1bb6$31508400$010a0a0a@news.tornado.be.tornado.be> <6a9s9j$1bj$5@vodka.tnx.djmarkets.co.uk>Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.u <885568522snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34

Robert Billing  noted:
> Incidentally, there seems to be some debate over what NT actually
> stands for. Some suggestions are:
>
>  No Thanks
>  Nice Try
>  Needs Testing
>
>and referring to how long it takes to install
>
>  Next Thursday.

Nice, I am adding them to my collection:
http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/Jokes_and_Fun/Windows_NT_Meaning

My favourite is: Nuke This

Anyone got any other interpretations, mail them!

-- 
Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/
  for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http:
Mac, 95 and NT users are CLUEless (Command Line User Environment)
If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped

######

collection moved to:

http://neil.franklin.ch/Jokes_and_Fun/Windows_NT_Meaning

home page generally moved to:

http://neil.franklin.ch/

######

From: tnyari@voicenet.com (Trevor N.)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was:Re: back to the BASICS)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:15:50 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <34bc1221.3217585@snews.zippo.com>
References: <6861d3$jm8@netaxs.com> <68br78$4uu$1@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> <34b45f4e.18090195@news.innet.be> <34aa897c.236268324@news.xmission.com> <68f2gq$h5e$1@nixon.area.com> <34ab41b1.28180054@news.xmission.com> <34ab7afd.500450@news.innet.be> <34abc775.62429000@news.xmission.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-160.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!pln!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!snews1

On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 18:18:14 GMT, skb@xmission.removethis.com
(Scott Brown) wrote:
>
>Yes, I do have it loaded, very much against my wishes.  The default,
>you-can't-take-'em-out config entries are just one of the brain-dead
>things that really sucks about win95.  I'm sure (well, *almost* sure)
>that there exists a way to tell the system to ignore its defaults and
>only do what's explicitly listed in the config files, if only it were
>documented somewhere handy.  Shall we begin discussing the relative
>merits of Microsoft's documentation skills?

Windows98 build 1624 has in it's %WinDir% directory a file named:

CONFIG.TXT	18K	10/1/97	4:31PM	A

which describes the DOS=NOAUTO option.  This option prevents
HIMEM.SYS, IFSHLP.SYS and SETVER.EXE from loading automagically
upon booting into normal and safe modes.  This file exists in
previous betas as well.

-- 
Win*ows 95: n.   32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for
 a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded 
 for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that
 can't stand 1 bit of competition.   -Rev. Pee Kitty

######

From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:53:31 GMT
Organization: .
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <34cf8322.3796107@news.innet.be>
References: <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <885254383.5398.1.nnrp-01.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c4db24.687194@news.innet.be> <34ce697c.226965@snews.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-36.innet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-3.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:14:09 GMT, tnyari@voicenet.com (Trevor N.) told
the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:28:19 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der
> Veken) wrote:
> 
> >Far more stable means, in my case, that my main PC (used fairly
> >intensive for 6 to 8 hours/day) hasn't crashed on me ONCE in at least
> >six months.
> 
> Six months of 24/7 isn't bad.  Or do you turn it off at night?

Most people usually do, unless other people have to have access to
their computer.

People talking about 24/7 usually run unix or so, I was comparing
win95 to win3.

We're not gonna make this another "my OS is better than yours" thread,
are we? ;)

--
[I know this sig is not exactly McQ - but it's a one-timer and it's
smaller than Kibo's]

DOS AIR All the passengers go out onto the runway, grab hold of the
plane, push it until it gets in the air, hop on, jump off when it hits
the ground again. Then they grab the plane again, push it back into
the air, hop on, etcetera. 

WINDOWS '95 AIRLINES The terminal is very neat and clean, the
attendants are all very attractive and the pilots very capable. The
fleet is immense. After your plane arrives 6 months late, you begin to
wonder why it has not arrived yet. Your jet takes off without a hitch,
pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet it crashes without
warning. 

*N*X EXPRESS Each passenger brings a piece of the airplane and a box
of tools to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly
about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it
together. Eventually, they build several different aircraft, but give
them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their
destinations. All passengers believe they got there. 

MAC AIRWAYS The cashiers, flight attendants, and pilots all look the
same, feel the same and act the same. When asked questions about the
flight they reply that you don't want to know, don't need to know, and
would you please return to your seat and watch the movie. 

OS/2 SKYWAYS The terminal is almost empty, with only a few prospective
passengers milling about. Airline personnel walk around, apologising
profusely to customers in hushed voices, pointing from time to time to
the sleek, powerful jets outside the terminal on the field. They tell
each passenger how good the real flight will be on these new jets and
how much safer it will be than Windows Airlines, but that they will
have to wait a little longer for the technicians to finish the flight
systems. 

FLY WINDOWS NT All the passengers carry their seats out onto the
tarmac, placing the chairs in the outline of a plane. They all sit
down, flap their arms and make jet swooshing sounds as if they are
flying. 

WINGS of OS/400 The airline has bought ancient DC-3s, arguably the
best and safest planes that ever flew and painted "747" on their tails
to make them look as if they are fast. The flight attendants, of
course, attend to your every need, though the drinks cost $15 a pop.
Stupid questions cost $230 per hour, unless you have SupportLine,
which requires a first class ticket and membership in the frequent
flyer club. 

MVS AIRLINES The passengers all gather in the hanger, watching
hundreds of technicians check the flight systems on this immense,
luxury aircraft. This plane has at least 10 engines and seats over
1,000 passengers. All the passengers scramble aboard, as do the
necessary complement of 200 technicians. The pilot takes his place up
in the glass cockpit. He guns the engines, only to realise that the
plane is too big to get through the hangar doors! 

######

Path: ccw.ch!usenet
From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is Win95 without DOS (was: back to the BASICS)
Date: 29 Jan 1998 23:35:34 +0100
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 39
Message-ID: 
References: <34c30d5a.9770975@news.innet.be> <885254383.5398.1.nnrp-01.9e98ee68@news.demon.co.uk> <34c4db24.687194@news.innet.be> <34ce697c.226965@snews.zippo.com> <34cf8322.3796107@news.innet.be>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:28:19 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote:
>Far more stable means, in my case, that my main PC (used fairly
>intensive for 6 to 8 hours/day) hasn't crashed on me ONCE in at least
>six months.

For me it is 3/4 years since the last Linux crash (of 4 machines). I
tried to  tar c | tar x  70MB from one HD to an other, both on the
same SCSI bus, which had 4 (!) terminators (Adaper, source/normal HD,
destination/temporary HD and external CD-ROM (usually not connected).
That crash was repeatable, unplugging the CD-ROM solved it.

All other crashes I've had in the 1990s were also hardware (defect
video card (new one solved it), 2 clashing IDE controllers (the
on-board one didn't disable cleanly, used that instead), defective
HD firmware (hardware from the OSes perspective, new disk worked)).


On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:14:09 GMT, tnyari@voicenet.com (Trevor N.) told
the world, or rather subsection alt.folklore.computers of it, that:
> Six months of 24/7 isn't bad.  Or do you turn it off at night?
lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) answered:
>Most people usually do, unless other people have to have access to
>their computer.
>People talking about 24/7 usually run unix or so, I was comparing
>win95 to win3.

One of these 4 is an 486DX-33 Internet/sendmail/apache/wu-ftp server
(www.ccw.ch) running 24/7 that has now 120 days uptime. It has only
crashed once since I have it (2/3 years), because of power faillure.


Yes, PCs can be that reliable!!!


-- 
Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/
  for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http:
Mac, 95 and NT users are CLUEless (Command Line User Environment)
If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped