F
Franc Zabkar
Guest
Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)
Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:59:48 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:
>>
>> BootGUI=0
>>
>> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can
>> choose to launch win.com.
>>
>> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS
>> mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real
>> DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support
>> Don's original statement?
>
>That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you
>could say that "XP is built atop win-98".
>
>You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with
>your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during
>startup and selecting "command-prompt only".
>
>Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to
>boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I
>have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well
>guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has
>XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"
>doesn't it?
I don't see that as a valid analogy.
>Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and
>*startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them
>or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos
>functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.
Yes, I understand that. I didn't mean to imply that Windows *relies*
on DOS, or BIOS for that matter, once it is up and running.
>It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot
>DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,
>32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a
>single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).
In my example I have a DOS batch file, autoexec.bat, which calls
win.com. When the GUI terminates, the system resumes executing
autoexec.bat. Doesn't this prove that DOS is "idling" in the
background? Isn't win.com just another task?
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:59:48 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:
>>
>> BootGUI=0
>>
>> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can
>> choose to launch win.com.
>>
>> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS
>> mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real
>> DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support
>> Don's original statement?
>
>That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you
>could say that "XP is built atop win-98".
>
>You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with
>your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during
>startup and selecting "command-prompt only".
>
>Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to
>boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I
>have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well
>guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has
>XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"
>doesn't it?
I don't see that as a valid analogy.
>Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and
>*startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them
>or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos
>functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.
Yes, I understand that. I didn't mean to imply that Windows *relies*
on DOS, or BIOS for that matter, once it is up and running.
>It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot
>DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,
>32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a
>single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).
In my example I have a DOS batch file, autoexec.bat, which calls
win.com. When the GUI terminates, the system resumes executing
autoexec.bat. Doesn't this prove that DOS is "idling" in the
background? Isn't win.com just another task?
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.