DOS based windows

[Salmon Trout]

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?

[Boozu]

So what do batch run off of?

[Salmon Trout]

So what do batch run off of?

cmd.exe

PS "off of" is not English.

[Boozu]

PS "off of" is not English.

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

Were did cmd come from?

[Salmon Trout]

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?

[Boozu]

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.

[Mulreay]

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.

[Boozu]

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

[Mulreay]

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.

[Boozu]

Agreed.

[Mulreay]

Agreed.

Thanks 

[Geek-9pm]

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?

[Allan]

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?

[Mulreay]

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

*reported*

[Fed]

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.