DOS based windows

I just found out that Windows 98 has to be installed in DOS but Windows 98 SE can be installed without booting from DOS.  Am I right to assume that that would make Windows 98 the last DOS based Windows?

[Moderator]

No. Windows 98SE was DOS based.

So was ME

[Moderator]

Right. XP was the first MS OS not built on a DOS kernel.

Right. XP was the first MS OS not built on a DOS kernel.

No; that was NT 3.1

I don't think that's what Amats meant. Technical xp, vista, and win7 are all based on dos. I think he meant something like weather or not 98 was the last windows that relied on dos for so much that it had to be installed with it.

[Moderator]

I don't think that's what Amats meant. Technical xp, vista, and win7 are all based on dos. I think he meant something like weather or not 98 was the last windows that relied on dos for so much that it had to be installed with it.

What? Neither XP, Vista, nor 7 are "based on dos". They are all built on an NT kernel.

[Moderator]

EDIT - Double post.

Why did you quot yourself?

[Moderator]

Inadvertent double post. I'm going to delete the quote in the second post - sorry for the confusion.

What? Neither XP, Vista, nor 7 are "based on dos". They are all built on an NT kernel.

Neither...nor only applies to 2 things. You forgot Windows 2000? You ignored my remark about NT 3.1 being the "first MS operating system not based on DOS".

For reference

Code: [Select]

Version Marketing name
NT 3.1 Windows NT 3.1
NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.5
NT 3.51 Windows NT 3.51
NT 4.0 Windows NT 4.0
NT 5.0 Windows 2000
NT 5.1 Windows XP
NT 5.2 Windows Server 2003
NT 5.2 Windows Home Server
NT 6.0 Windows Vista
NT 6.1 Windows 7


Basically I was just wondering, at what point did Windows require special installation procedures to install DOS games?  I have several fairly new computers which either they are a pain to install and don't always reliably play or my newest one they won't install at all.  Im looking around for a 486 computer to put on an old DOS version of windows because they played well on it.

Dos is at the core of all windows. Dos uses many files to run the os and if you don't have dos then you don't have a running os. If windoows did not need dos to run then it would not be built in and then many of the people on this forum would not be on this forum because there would be no need to talk about something that was not even being used.

[Moderator]

Dos is at the core of all windows. Dos uses many files to run the os and if you don't have dos then you don't have a running os. If windoows did not need dos to run then it would not be built in and then many of the people on this forum would not be on this forum because there would be no need to talk about something that was not even being used.

You are mistaken. As I said above - XP, Vista, and Windows 7 do not even contain dos, let alone being built on it.

Dos is at the core of all windows.

Not true. See above  

Dos uses many files to run the os and if you don't have dos then you don't have a running os.

This is nonsense.

If windoows did not need dos to run then it would not be built in

It is not built in.

and then many of the people on this forum would not be on this forum because there would be no need to talk about something that was not even being used.

meaningless

As I said above - XP, Vista, and Windows 7 do not even contain dos, let alone being built on it.

You keep ignoring NT 3.1 through 5.0. Why?

So what do batch run off of?

So what do batch run off of?

cmd.exe

PS "off of" is not English.

PS "off of" is not English.

Fine, how would you EDIT(word it) work it?

Were did cmd come from?

Fine, how would you work it?

Word it... I'd write "What makes batch files work?"

Were did cmd come from?

Where... with an 'h'...

It is the command-line interpreter on OS/2, Windows CE and on Windows NT-based operating systems. It is the analogue of COMMAND.COM in MS-DOS and Windows 9x systems, or of the Unix shells used on Unix-like systems.

If you need to ask that question, maybe you should step back and do some learning, instead of filling the thread up with nonsense?

Hay I never claimed to be an English professor so get off my case. As for the rest of it, I only say what I believe is the truth and if I'm am wrong then so be it.

Hay I never claimed to be an English professor so get off my case. As for the rest of it, I only say what I believe is the truth and if I'm am wrong then so be it.

Ok this is close to flaming. Everyone take a deep breath. Salmon_trout is correct though so either listen to him or just don't post back a useless argument.

I've excepted what he said about dos. I just don't want him preaching to me about English.

I've excepted what he said about dos. I just don't want him preaching to me about English.

That's fair enough so lets leave it there.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Thanks 

Pardon me. I am lost here. What is the question?
Windows 311 was often sold with DOS 6.22 and worked well as it could.

And you could do a full install of Windows 3.11 on top of another DOS instead of only MS-DOS. ANd it would work as well as it could.

I recall this detail because at the time there was a serious issue about the MS business practice of promoting the idea that it was better with MS-DOS.

But in either case, MS-DOS or some other DOS, there was loose integration of the GUI and the DOS. That is, it did not require a pure binary equal of the MS product to work.

So hen, Windows 3.11 was DOS based in the sense that the DOS was the fundamental files system. The GUI had its own engine for graphics. So it was a super structure on top of DOS.
Why is the issue so important that we rant over any OS that is no longer a current product? Is there some great truth to be learned?

Curious minds need to know.
Why is it important to say ...
whether an OS was DOS based?

[Moderator]

So hen, Windows 3.11 was DOS based in the sense that the DOS was the fundamental files system. The GUI had its own engine for graphics. So it was a super structure on top of DOS.

Not "in the sense" - 3.1 was absolutely built on dos. But now I'm confused - what's your point?

Ok I think this thread has had it's time. I did warn you guys.

*reported*

[Moderator]

I've excepted what he said about dos. I just don't want him preaching to me about English.

Communication is very important.
Look up the meaning of excepted and then look up the meaning of accepted.
You're implying that you agree with Salmon Trout yet you are saying the opposite.
Which is it?
There is a Spell Check button in the Post Screen, not that it would have helped in this case.

[Moderator]

Ok I think this thread has had it's time. I did warn you guys.

*reported*

Give it a break Mulreay - so far there's nothing wrong with this thread. And even if there were, it's not your place to "warn" anyone. That's what the forum staff and the "report" button are there for.

Insert Quote  
Ok I think this thread has had it's time. I did warn you guys.

*reported*

Why?

Not "in the sense" - 3.1 was absolutely built on dos. But now I'm confused - what's your point?

I was a little confused too.

Communication is very important.
Look up the meaning of excepted and then look up the meaning of accepted.
You're implying that you agree with Salmon Trout yet you are saying the opposite.
Which is it?
There is a Spell Check button in the Post Screen, not that it would have helped in this case.

Realy dood?

Realy dood?

Dude not dood.

Give it a break Mulreay - so far there's nothing wrong with this thread. And even if there were, it's not your place to "warn" anyone. That's what the forum staff and the "report" button are there for.

These have a tendency to escalate into a useless topic that makes us all look bad to noobs. Were here to set an example not create the problems that we are all working to clean up. I never suggested I was a mod and yes it is my place to warn people as it's yours as well.
I'm not being arrogant just making sure another thread that HAS been answered does not turn in to a 5 page rant.

[Moderator]

It's your (and my) place to give your opinion - not to warn. And now I'll move on from the nonsense in this thread.

It's your (and my) place to give your opinion - not to warn. And now I'll move on from the nonsense in this thread.

So I'm not allowed to warn people that I will report a thread? Allan I have backed you up in the past and you never mentioned this warning problem.

I will 'warn' anyone or any thread I choose that I will report them if they don't stop. If I'm wrong then Admin or a mod can tell me in a PM.

Dude not dood.

Really DOOD!!!
It's that kind of stuff that makes people turn this into a

useless topic that makes us all look bad to noobs....5 page rant

Like Allen said

And now I'll move on from the nonsense in this thread.

So I'm not allowed to warn people that I will report a thread?

I'll report you Mulreay, and I'll type "needs to get over himself" in the reason box.

I'll report you Mulreay, and I'll type "needs to get over himself" in the reason box.

go for it. Next time PM me don't hang your laundry out in public.

go for it. Next time PM me don't hang your laundry out in public.

My laundry? Curious metaphor. I was trying (and failing, I now see) to ironically show how irritating it would be to the mods to get pointless messages from little hotshot reporting guys all the time.

My laundry? Curious metaphor. I was trying (and failing, I now see) to ironically show how irritaing it would be to the mods to get pointless messages from little hotshot reporting guys all the time.

See I was all well and happy to walk away then you make it personal to me by calling me 'little hotshot'.
Lets get something straight right now. I don't mind you arguing with my posts but do NOT make this personal. Don't label me, call me names or actively degrade me on the forum. If you have an issue then PM me or this time I will send a useless report to the mods.

[Moderator]

Enough.

Topic Closed.