Using DOS Today...

[ghostdog74]

Hey,

OK, so I've been thinking. In light of the 'bloatware' we all seem to be accustomed to these days, wouldn't it be nice to take a trip back to a much simpler time? Is it possible to use DOS effectively today, as a full-time OS?

Switch to *nix then.

[BC_Programmer]

Actually MAC's were the first DOS based machines.   Not they didn't run MS-DOS or IBMDOS, but they were booted from floppy making it by definition a DOS based system.

Alright- and what did an Apple II boot from then? If you really want to get technical, any operating system that uses any type of Disk is a "Disk Operating System" which is why the moniker is used  almost universally to refer to MS-DOS, PC-DOS, or one of several variants,  not to any particular operating system (rather, "Operating System" is used)

but also DOS isn't technacally DOS.  DOS (Disk Operating System) comes from a time when there were no drive in computer to boot from.

that was called BASIC. It was A Disk Operating System. Not the one universally referred to with the previously described moniker.

Ok I stand corrected again Hard Disk Drive.  I guess anyone would have taken that out of context since we commonly refer to HDD as drives.

And MS-DOS is just Microsoft's version of DOS.  If you are going to get technical about things then you should not, repeat not mix facts with fiction.  As far the CMD.exe it is still based off command.com, but it takes advantage of the NT features available in a command shell.  So yes there is DOS in Windows up to Windows 2008 Server.  And this is according to Microsoft yes the product producer.  And if Microsft is willing to call the command shell DOS who are we to argue with them?

But thanks again for your input

the REAL version(s) of DOS will have the boot files IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS or IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM in the root directory of the boot drive. All I can find is NTLDR.

    And if Microsoft is willing to call the command shell DOS who are we to argue with them?

And when did microsoft ever call their command line DOS? they called it a Command Interpreter, and they've mentioned in fleeting the running of DOS  applications in Windows NT/XP, but I can find no reference where Microsoft Explicitly states that the cmd.exe interpreter is DOS. That makes sense, because last time I checked, cmd.exe was a 32-bit Windows application that emulates DOS within the windows NT environment.

On the other hand, Windows 95,98 and ME all run on top of DOS (remember, this is a MONIKER not a acronym to be taken literally), and thus you can actually boot into it. I dare anybody to try to boot into Pure DOS with XP... what, can't do it? (And NO the recovery console is not DOS, no matter how drawn out your explanation is or how fervently you interpret every single word in a acronym. However, it is A DOS, since it Operates on Disks.

but also DOS isn't technacally DOS.  DOS (Disk Operating System) comes from a time when there were no drive in computer to boot from.

"When there was no drive to boot from?" Really? Don't you think you'd better think about what you just wrote?

In case you missed the rich sarcasm, Dias (and I as well) find it odd how a disk operating system can find use in a system with no drives to hold those disks. Kind of moot, if you ask me.

Anyway, when people say "DOS" in the context which we are discussing, they mean "MS-DOS", not "a DOS".

a point I have reiterated several times in attempts to avoid delusioned rebuttals.

[Dias de verano]

so, erobby, there you have it.

[patio]

This re-education process is moving along swimmingly.....

 

[GuruGary]

If you want to use DOS as your OS, I would recommend taking a look at FREEDOS (www.freedos.org). It is compatible with the vast majority of DOS programs, plus has a lot of features of the newer command processors.  It also has built-in networking support, and you can even use a text based web browser in it.

[erobby]

Apple DOS released in 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_DOS

MSDOS released in 1981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

Now if you want to mention the ROM boot strap by early PC that put you into basic which was not DOS fine, but it's not DOS.  It's Basic as the name implies a programing interface.

No as far as your to system file one controlled hardware the the other controlled the environment, but you could not boot without a command interperter "Command.com" which is DOS it processes all of your internal commands.  You know the commands that aren't actually files like "DIR" and such.

Now we are all aware of what the moniker implies and DIAS and BC Thanks for the history lesson and the stroll down amnesia lane.  Reading is fundamental.

Now DIAS had you simple said this is about MS-DOS in the beginning, instead of stating what is and isn't DOS we could have all saved ourselves a lot of time.  But again I love a good discussion.

To all thanks for the enlightenment   

[GuruGary]

Apple DOS released in 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_DOS

MSDOS released in 1981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

And ...

FreeDOS released in September, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS

[Dias de verano]

Now DIAS had you simple said this is about MS-DOS in the beginning, instead of stating what is and isn't DOS we could have all saved ourselves a lot of time.  But again I love a good discussion.

To all thanks for the enlightenment   

erobby, I think you'd maybe better lose some of your "attitood" if you want to have a happy time on here...

[erobby]

erobby, I think you'd maybe better lose some of your "attitood" if you want to have a happy time on here...

[/quote]

Oddly I am have a great time I can only guess it's you that's not very happy about now.  Why would you think I'm not having a good time here?  But once again Thanks for your observations

[BC_Programmer]

Apple DOS released in 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_DOS

That's weird- you talked about the DOS being for a mac... as I said that was for the Apple II....

Now if you want to mention the ROM boot strap by early PC that put you into basic which was not DOS fine, but it's not DOS.  It's Basic as the name implies a programing interface.

that's exactly what I said- I was merely trying to make sense of your statement that "DOS comes from a time when there was no drive to boot from", which seems illogical... Unless, you mean "drive" as in hard drive....

No as far as your to system file one controlled hardware the the other controlled the environment, but you could not boot without a command interperter "Command.com" which is DOS it processes all of your internal commands.  You know the commands that aren't actually files like "DIR" and such.

oh, good, so I guess I don't need IBMBIO.SYS and IBMSYS.SYS hanging around on my laptops hard drive. They aren't DOS so I don't need them, thanks for clearing that up.

Now we are all aware of what the moniker implies and DIAS and BC Thanks for the history lesson and the stroll down amnesia lane.  Reading is fundamental.

Now DIAS had you simple said this is about MS-DOS in the beginning, instead of stating what is and isn't DOS we could have all saved ourselves a lot of time.  But again I love a good discussion.

Anyway, when people say "DOS" in the context which we are discussing, they mean "MS-DOS", not "a DOS".

what is that then?

[erobby]

Well BC I guess had you read the discussion from the start

But the cmd interpreter in Win2k and later is not "DOS".

 

Which is what started this dialog between us.

Well yes you are technically correct that's why I said command interperter, but also DOS isn't technacally DOS. 

Actually MAC's were the first DOS based machines.   Not they didn't run MS-DOS or IBMDOS, but they were booted from floppy making it by definition a DOS based system.

Which started the discussion for MAC's, but maybe I should have been clear and said the Apple.  But none the less the point is clear and I apologize if you missed it.


And once again the system files aren't DOS, but they are needed.  I guess I should explain what a user interface is, which is what DOS is.  With that said you still need the hardware to work.

So at least try to produce better information then the news.  If you quote someone, maybe you should quote them instead of snippets you prefer to be read.

But once again thanks for all of your insight into what DOS is, what was said and how you interpreted the information.

[BC_Programmer]

I find it strange how we already defined that DOS used in passing is used to refer to MS-DOS, and yet you insist on referring to Apple DOS as the first DOS. Once again, it is A DOS, not THE DOS that is used when using the term DOS colloquially.


COMMAND.COM, BTW, is the command interpreter, and doesn't actually perform any Disk Operating Functions, since those are handled by the DOS core drivers resident in IO.SYS (or IBMBIO.COM). In addition, command.com does not provide a GUI(Graphical User Interface) but rather a CLI (command line Interface)

Actually MAC's were the first DOS based machines.   Not they didn't run MS-DOS or IBMDOS, but they were booted from floppy making it by definition a DOS based system.

Which started the discussion for MAC's, but maybe I should have been clear and said the Apple.  But none the less the point is clear and I apologize if you missed it.

There is no point. We've already established that although all these component you claim to be DOS are A DOS they are not THE DOS being referred to today. Regardless, a DISK OPERATING SYSTEM doesn't necessarily need to BOOT from a Floppy disk to be considered as such, since it simply needs to operate a disk to acquire that label. In fact, we can call any OS a DOS, but once again, not THE DOS that is being referred to, which (for clarity) would be MS-DOS and PC-DOS as developed by Microsoft for the IBM-PC, as well as it's derivatives.

I won't speak for Dias who likely has left this conversation to save himself unneeded aggravation, but I simply found the statement, "but also DOS isn't technacally DOS" somewhat humourous, especially as it was not provided any weight, it was just a empty statement. If you could somehow prove that DOS isn't DOS I'm all ears. And don't simply quote your previous responses, since half of what you've said so far is self-conflicting.

No as far as your to system file one controlled hardware the the other controlled the environment, but you could not boot without a command interperter "Command.com" which is DOS it processes all of your internal commands.  You know the commands that aren't actually files like "DIR" and such.

And now we are getting lost in the moniker, since DOS (as you know) stands for "disk operating system". a DISK is hardware, and is thus controlled by IO.sys. to that effect, we can only be forced to call IO.SYS DOS. Sure, you can't boot without a command interpreter- but to DOS command.com is essentially what explorer.exe is to windows (difference being that you literally can't do anything without command.com in DOS, but Windows provides more user-interaction then DOS without it's core UI.

So at least try to produce better information then the news.  If you quote someone, maybe you should quote them instead of snippets you prefer to be read.

I believe the whole idea of quoting somebody is to single out particular statements for scrutiny. That is what I did.

[CosmicFlux]

Switch to *nix then.

I don't like the term 'switching'. It implies that a user can only use one system and, therefore, has to switch. In my opinion, too many people get stuck on a single OS, some to the point where they regard the OS as the computer! One should have an appreciation of the Operating System as a whole, you learn a *censored* of a lot more as you see how things work in a broader context.

I currently run a triple-boot system, with Ubuntu & Vista on one drive and MS-DOS 7.10 on the other. I'll soon be running FreeBSD on the DOS drive too.

My initial question was about using a system as basic as DOS to perform every day computing tasks. We all know this can be done in *nix systems, these are hardly basic and, therefore, the point would be moot.

Message to erobby:

Once you say something, it's in the public domain. There is no point backtracking. You've said that Microsoft refer to the Command Interpreter as DOS, this is NOT correct. You've said that early systems using DOS-Type OS's didn't have drives to boot from, which is preposterous. If you meant Hard Drives you should have stated that and you wouldn't have caused so much confusion!

[erobby]

once again miss quoting I never mentioned GUI I simply said user interface and whether you believe it or not all CLI's are user interfaces.  And actually command.com is a command interperter should I break up the to words and explain in detail what they mean. 

And your IO or ibmio are hardware controllers hence IO meaning input/output devices not command interpertation.  IO devices like keyboard, monitor and any other piece of hardware that need to function.

http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-msdos.htm

Once again I understand this board is about MS-DOS, that has never been in question.

Now to answer your final question.  DOS was designed for machine that did not have OS's installed on them or a way of instyalling an OS on them.  Which meant you booted from a Diskette or Disk, hence Disk Operationg System.  Later when the ability to add Hard Drives you had the ability to install the OS on the drives.  With early DOS there was no setup to run you could transfer the system files to another location, but setup.exe did not exist.  So while DOS was no a Disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it functioned the same way.  Just an FYI for you DOS use to be called Diskette Operating System, but as we all know you can refer to a Hard Drive as a HArd Disk Drive but never a Diskette.

Cosmic you are correct but I did clearfy the HDD error early on.  Also yes they do make the distinction between Command.com and CMD.exe one being a DOS copmmand shell and the other being a Windows Command line shell.

[BC_Programmer]

once again miss quoting I never mentioned GUI I simply said user interface and whether you believe it or not all CLI's are user interfaces.  And actually command.com is a command interperter should I break up the to words and explain in detail what they mean. 

I officially apologize for that one

And your IO or ibmio are hardware controllers hence IO meaning input/output devices not command interpertation.  IO devices like keyboard, monitor and any other piece of hardware that need to function.

Yes, but what I was saying, is that if we wanted to get down to what really made it a Disk Operating System, it would be the core drive interface routines in IO.SYS, not the command interpretative abilities of command.com. the command interpretive abilities (as you have said) are simply the user interface between the user and the I/O routines.

Now to answer your final question.  DOS was designed for machine that did not have OS's installed on them or a way of instyalling an OS on them.  Which meant you booted from a Diskette or Disk, hence Disk Operationg System.  Later when the ability to add Hard Drives you had the ability to install the OS on the drives.  With early DOS there was no setup to run you could transfer the system files to another location, but setup.exe did not exist.  So while DOS was no a Disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it functioned the same way.  Just an FYI for you DOS use to be called Diskette Operating System, but as we all know you can refer to a Hard Drive as a HArd Disk Drive but never a Diskette.

Cosmic you are correct but I did clearfy the HDD error early on.  Also yes they do make the distinction between Command.com and CMD.exe one being a DOS copmmand shell and the other being a Windows Command line shell.

was this the correction?

Ok I stand corrected again Hard Disk Drive.  I guess anyone would have taken that out of context since we commonly refer to HDD as drives.

Although I see the first sentence as the admittance, the second one seems to try to make an excuse, and blame the reader.... calling a Hard Disk Drive a Drive most definitely cannot be construed as "taking it out of context". The best way to correct the problem would have been to edit your post as well. If that had been done, most of this discussion would not have occurred. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is left to the individual poster





Now to answer your final question.  DOS was designed for machine that did not have OS's installed on them or a way of instyalling an OS on them.  Which meant you booted from a Diskette or Disk, hence Disk Operationg System.  Later when the ability to add Hard Drives you had the ability to install the OS on the drives.  With early DOS there was no setup to run you could transfer the system files to another location, but setup.exe did not exist.  So while DOS was no a Disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it functioned the same way.  Just an FYI for you DOS use to be called Diskette Operating System, but as we all know you can refer to a Hard Drive as a HArd Disk Drive but never a Diskette.

[/quote]

DOS has always stood for Disk Operating System. Floppy Disks were called Simply "disks", as their was no need for the additional verbose "floppy" qualifier before Hard Disk Drives became affordable (and usable) in DOS 2.0.


And I hate to drag this thread on any longer, but this confused me, "so While DOS was not a disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it functioned the same Way". I'm not particularly sure what you mean there- all DOS needs to do to live up to the acronym is work with floppy disks (or hard disks, as the case may be). I don't see how the presence or lack of a setup.exe file can disqualify it from the term....