On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>
>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>
> Look again.
>
> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
> only if you let it.
>
> nb

I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
down to my son who seems to like it fine.

Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.

Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
mistrust MS.

In article >, dsi1@usenet-
news.net says...
>
> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
> >
> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
> >
> > Look again.
> >
> > WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
> > to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
> > M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
> > only if you let it.
> >
> > nb
>
> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>
> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>
> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
> mistrust MS.

Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
you will be wrong.

On 4/18/2011 9:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>>
>>> Look again.
>>>
>>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>>> only if you let it.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.
>
> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.
>

Thanks for letting me have the option on this - I think I'll take you up
on it. :-)

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
in.local...
> In article >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>> > On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>> >
>> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
>> >
>> > Look again.
>> >
>> > WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>> > to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>> > M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>> > only if you let it.
>> >
>> > nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

NT was based on POSIX which was fairly portable.

> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.

NT was a ground up project that was derived as part of the IBM/M$ joint
venture known as OS/2. Actually OS/2 was almost entirely an M$ design.

Paul

On 19/04/2011 5:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>>
>>> Look again.
>>>
>>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>>> only if you let it.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

You've reminded me that it was a DEC Alpha that we had as an office
server some time back. That was the one running NT 3.5. Don't know if it
ever was upgraded to NT 4.
>
> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.
>
Agreed, There were two different families or streams of Windows at
Microsoft back in the days. One was the DOS based version and the other
was the Enterprise based stuff which used NT 3.5, NT 4, Win2k, etc. When
they merged the two streams into one, then DOS was no more.

Krypsis

On 19/04/2011 3:08 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>
>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>
>> Look again.
>>
>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>> only if you let it.
>>
>> nb
>
> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>
> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>
> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
> mistrust MS.

DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
anything as primitive as DOS.

Krypsis

On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:

> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
> anything as primitive as DOS.
>
> Krypsis
>

It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.

The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
that assumption.

What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
changed.

*Heck, maybe it does.

On 19/04/2011 10:02 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>>
>> Krypsis
>>
>
> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to

Windows NT was designed from the ground up with NO backward
compatibility in mind. It was designed for the Enterprise market had had
no need of backward compatibility per se. The "home" versions of Windows
were saddled with the underlying DOS but that was gone by XP I believe
as it uses the NT underpinnings.

> emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
> that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.

No, they always have a little bit of legacy stuff in them somewhere or
they emulate it. After all, Apple quite successfully did this when they
went through a great leap foreward. Eventually the legacy stuff
disappears entirely.
>
> The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
> programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
> that assumption.
>
> What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
> trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
> changed.

Microsoft will always look after number 1.
>
> *Heck, maybe it does.
>
Krypsis

"Krypsis" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/04/2011 10:02 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>
>>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
>>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
>>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>>>
>>> Krypsis
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
>> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
>> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
>
> Windows NT was designed from the ground up with NO backward compatibility
> in mind. It was designed for the Enterprise market had had no need of
> backward compatibility per se. The "home" versions of Windows were saddled
> with the underlying DOS but that was gone by XP I believe as it uses the
> NT underpinnings.

Actually no, NT was quite capable of running legacy DOS apps. It was not
all unusual to have NT Workstation running DOS and Windows apps. It was
only when Windows 2000 came out that they began to phase it out. The home
versions began with XP and were practically the same minus the Active
Directory layer. It just had a smaller workgroup model network layer.
What began in XP was the removal of support for 16 bit drivers. This was
the main issue with Windows 98 and its rather famous instability problems.

>> emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
>> that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.
>
> No, they always have a little bit of legacy stuff in them somewhere or
> they emulate it. After all, Apple quite successfully did this when they
> went through a great leap foreward. Eventually the legacy stuff disappears
> entirely.

Apple ius pretty brutal about it, though. Ask anyone who installed a
'suggested" update which among other things turned off all further updates
for your system. At least M$ didn't force you to buy new hardware so you
could run OS X 10.2 which fixed bugs in 10.1.

>> The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
>> programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
>> that assumption.
> >
>> What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
>> trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
>> changed.
>
> Microsoft will always look after number 1.

True but they know when they're beat. They wanted to phase out all XP
support after Vista was released but finally bowed to the pressure and added
years onto its lifespan.

Paul

On 20/04/2011 2:49 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 19/04/2011 10:02 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>
>>>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
>>>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>>>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
>>>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>>>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>>>>
>>>> Krypsis
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
>>> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
>>> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
>>
>> Windows NT was designed from the ground up with NO backward compatibility
>> in mind. It was designed for the Enterprise market had had no need of
>> backward compatibility per se. The "home" versions of Windows were saddled
>> with the underlying DOS but that was gone by XP I believe as it uses the
>> NT underpinnings.
>
> Actually no, NT was quite capable of running legacy DOS apps. It was not
> all unusual to have NT Workstation running DOS and Windows apps. It was
> only when Windows 2000 came out that they began to phase it out. The home
> versions began with XP and were practically the same minus the Active
> Directory layer. It just had a smaller workgroup model network layer.
> What began in XP was the removal of support for 16 bit drivers. This was
> the main issue with Windows 98 and its rather famous instability problems.

Try to run any DOS apps that require direct access to the hardware and
you might be in for a shock. That includes any apps that use sound.
Under Win NTx, backward compatibility only went so far and no further.
When they moved all of our desktops to Win NT4, most of our commonly
used apps needed to be totally rewritten. The whole idea of the NT
(Enterprise) line of Windows was to control program access to hardware,
a necessary first step in computer security.

Krypsis

<snip>

"Krypsis" > wrote in message
...
> On 20/04/2011 2:49 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 19/04/2011 10:02 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left
>>>>> in
>>>>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>>>>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary
>>>>> functionality
>>>>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>>>>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Krypsis
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
>>>> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
>>>> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
>>>
>>> Windows NT was designed from the ground up with NO backward
>>> compatibility
>>> in mind. It was designed for the Enterprise market had had no need of
>>> backward compatibility per se. The "home" versions of Windows were
>>> saddled
>>> with the underlying DOS but that was gone by XP I believe as it uses the
>>> NT underpinnings.
>>
>> Actually no, NT was quite capable of running legacy DOS apps. It was not
>> all unusual to have NT Workstation running DOS and Windows apps. It was
>> only when Windows 2000 came out that they began to phase it out. The
>> home
>> versions began with XP and were practically the same minus the Active
>> Directory layer. It just had a smaller workgroup model network layer.
>> What began in XP was the removal of support for 16 bit drivers. This was
>> the main issue with Windows 98 and its rather famous instability
>> problems.
>
> Try to run any DOS apps that require direct access to the hardware and you
> might be in for a shock. That includes any apps that use sound.

DOS only had a speaker which could be modulated. And you could run DOS
games on NT Workstation.

> Under Win NTx, backward compatibility only went so far and no further.
> When they moved all of our desktops to Win NT4, most of our commonly used
> apps needed to be totally rewritten. The whole idea of the NT (Enterprise)
> line of Windows was to control program access to hardware, a necessary
> first step in computer security.

Under NT it was pretty comprehensive save for things like direct drive
writes. NT never stood for Enterprise. Enterprise stood for enterprise as
in their enterprise versions of there servers. NT meant "new technology"
And you can do a lot with a computer OS that does not allow direct memory
writes outside of protected memory when the hardware manufacturer has built
a BIOS which allows the OS to write to the hardware. A programmer just
writes to directly to hardware registers or use APIs.

Just being pedantic. This stuff is not something I larned, I lived it while
it was happning.

Paul

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>
> > DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> > its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> > underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> > for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
> > anything as primitive as DOS.
> >
> > Krypsis
> >
>
> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
> emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
> that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.

Nobody ever claimed that XP was "brand spanking new". XP is NT 5.1. NT
was "brand spanking new" in 1993, however you probably never even saw
the box it came in--the Microsoft consumer OS at the time was Windows
3.1.

If you want to claim that XP has a lot of NT 3.1 code in it you'll be on
pretty firm ground. But to claim that it has DOS under it is a
different story. There is simply no reason for anybody familiar with
the history of NT to believe that.

> The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
> programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
> that assumption.
>
> What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
> trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
> changed.
>
> *Heck, maybe it does.

Answer me this. Having developed NT on hardware that was incapable of
running DOS, specifically so as to avoid _any_ legacy code creeping into
the system, and having run a parallel development stream for most of a
decade to slowly wean developers away from DOS, why would Microsoft then
rewrite major portions of the OS to put DOS back into it? And if NT
runs on top of DOS, then how does it run on the Itanium, which never,
EVER ran DOS?

On 4/19/2011 3:46 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, lid
> says...
>>
>> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>
>>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
>>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
>>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>>>
>>> Krypsis
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
>> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
>> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
>> emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
>> that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.
>
> Nobody ever claimed that XP was "brand spanking new". XP is NT 5.1. NT
> was "brand spanking new" in 1993, however you probably never even saw
> the box it came in--the Microsoft consumer OS at the time was Windows
> 3.1.
>
> If you want to claim that XP has a lot of NT 3.1 code in it you'll be on
> pretty firm ground. But to claim that it has DOS under it is a
> different story. There is simply no reason for anybody familiar with
> the history of NT to believe that.
>
>> The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
>> programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
>> that assumption.
>>
>> What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
>> trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
>> changed.
>>
>> *Heck, maybe it does.
>
> Answer me this. Having developed NT on hardware that was incapable of
> running DOS, specifically so as to avoid _any_ legacy code creeping into
> the system, and having run a parallel development stream for most of a
> decade to slowly wean developers away from DOS, why would Microsoft then
> rewrite major portions of the OS to put DOS back into it? And if NT
> runs on top of DOS, then how does it run on the Itanium, which never,
> EVER ran DOS?
>
>

You guys just like to go back and forth on the dumbest of things. My
point is that Windows biggest problem is that it's never been able to
break away from that legacy of DOS. Your position is that this is not
true. Feel free to imply that you know every line of code in Windows.

My suggestion is that you KF me with great haste cause I'm not going to
play this game with you or anybody. Thanks, it's been swell.

On 2011-04-19, dsi1 > wrote:

> My suggestion is that you KF me with great haste cause I'm not going to
> play this game with you or anybody.

If you are not going to play, why the need to KF you?

nb

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On 4/19/2011 3:46 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In >, lid
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> >>
> >>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> >>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> >>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> >>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
> >>> anything as primitive as DOS.
> >>>
> >>> Krypsis
> >>>
> >>
> >> It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
> >> saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
> >> generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
> >> emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
> >> that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.
> >
> > Nobody ever claimed that XP was "brand spanking new". XP is NT 5.1. NT
> > was "brand spanking new" in 1993, however you probably never even saw
> > the box it came in--the Microsoft consumer OS at the time was Windows
> > 3.1.
> >
> > If you want to claim that XP has a lot of NT 3.1 code in it you'll be on
> > pretty firm ground. But to claim that it has DOS under it is a
> > different story. There is simply no reason for anybody familiar with
> > the history of NT to believe that.
> >
> >> The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
> >> programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
> >> that assumption.
> >>
> >> What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
> >> trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
> >> changed.
> >>
> >> *Heck, maybe it does.
> >
> > Answer me this. Having developed NT on hardware that was incapable of
> > running DOS, specifically so as to avoid _any_ legacy code creeping into
> > the system, and having run a parallel development stream for most of a
> > decade to slowly wean developers away from DOS, why would Microsoft then
> > rewrite major portions of the OS to put DOS back into it? And if NT
> > runs on top of DOS, then how does it run on the Itanium, which never,
> > EVER ran DOS?
> >
> >
>
> You guys just like to go back and forth on the dumbest of things. My
> point is that Windows biggest problem is that it's never been able to
> break away from that legacy of DOS. Your position is that this is not
> true. Feel free to imply that you know every line of code in Windows.
>
> My suggestion is that you KF me with great haste cause I'm not going to
> play this game with you or anybody. Thanks, it's been swell.

Gotcha. You can't explain how something that runs on DOS could run on
machines that were incapable of running DOS, so rather than admitting
that you might be wrong you're having a temper tantrum, taking your
ball, and going home.

On 4/19/2011 11:12 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Gotcha. You can't explain how something that runs on DOS could run on
> machines that were incapable of running DOS, so rather than admitting
> that you might be wrong you're having a temper tantrum, taking your
> ball, and going home.
>
>

Gee, next you'll be saying that ya double dog dares me. :-)

On 2011-04-19, Krypsis > wrote:

> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
> anything as primitive as DOS.

You've obviously never had to dig into a cranky Windows box. More than
once I've had to resort to that DOS emu mode on hosed w2k boxes to
deal with files that didn't respond to Windows gui file mgr.

I will admit XP keeps surprising me w/ its robustness, but then it
turns right around and shows its true M$ heritage. My mom's Vaio w/
XP and tons of Sony crapware is getting more squirrely every day. Was
so froze up this morning, hadda unplug and replug it to cold reboot.
Some things about Windows never change.

nb

On 19/04/2011 11:40 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2011-04-19, > wrote:
>
>> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
>> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
>> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
>> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
>> anything as primitive as DOS.
>
> You've obviously never had to dig into a cranky Windows box. More than
> once I've had to resort to that DOS emu mode on hosed w2k boxes to
> deal with files that didn't respond to Windows gui file mgr.
>
> I will admit XP keeps surprising me w/ its robustness, but then it
> turns right around and shows its true M$ heritage. My mom's Vaio w/
> XP and tons of Sony crapware is getting more squirrely every day. Was
> so froze up this morning, hadda unplug and replug it to cold reboot.
> Some things about Windows never change.
>
> nb

So then it would be more correct to call it a CLI (command line
interface) or, as Mac users know it, a terminal. All it's providing is a
window into the underlying operating system.

Krypsis

On 2011-04-19, Krypsis > wrote:

> So then it would be more correct to call it a CLI (command line
> interface) or, as Mac users know it, a terminal. All it's providing is a
> window into the underlying operating system.

Fine by me. Call it whatever you prefer.

For some reason, I never strayed too far from CLI and like
environments. GUIs definitely have their place, particularly with
respect to graphics, but otherwise they and the mouse are jes wasted
movement, IMO. Being one lazy sumbitch, I hate reaching for a mouse
and do it under duress.


nb

"Krypsis" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/04/2011 3:08 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>>
>>> Look again.
>>>
>>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>>> only if you let it.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need anything
> as primitive as DOS.

It's not for diehards so much as it is for admins. If you manage any
Windows server or server app you know that most of the functionality is
command line based. M$ never got away from DOS in that respect because so
much of the OS is actually not GUI based. That is the same for a great many
of their server apps such as SQL Manager and Exchange. It's not actually
DOS but you'd be surprised the old DOS stuff that can still run under it.

Paul