Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
MS DOS
- Thread starter .Kencs
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,607
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Where did I say that
Stop making things up.
Your post does read like you are saying what caged suggests.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 120
- Location
- UK
use a bootable msdos floppy disk to use and test msdos commands
I run all the native CMD commands that I need through a PowerShell console. As good as Powershell is, some things are much simpler. Ping for instance.
As much as I love Powershell, I still keep in mind that you shouldn't shoehorn it into every situation. For example, just because I can backup/copy/move files using PS doesn't mean I should. Not when Robocopy already exists.
As much as I love Powershell, I still keep in mind that you shouldn't shoehorn it into every situation. For example, just because I can backup/copy/move files using PS doesn't mean I should. Not when Robocopy already exists.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,607
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Only if you can't read
it makes perfect sense to me; that the command prompt isn't DOS, but it's probably as close as you're going to get to a DOS like interface without getting an old/virtual Machine set-up with 'proper' DOS on it.
How else are you supposed to interpret "basically Windows 7 is still running with DOS in the background". Please enlighten me, oh wise one.
Edit: Actually don't bother. I don't care if you want to believe you're right and throw thinly-disguised insults around instead of addressing points. Everyone else can do their own research.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,759
Add me to the "can't read" list then, because the implication I'm getting from your post is that Win7 is a shell running on top of DOS in the same way that Windows 3.1 runs on top of DOS. It might not be what you meant to say, but that's definitely the way it comes across.
It does get a bit confusing when people (perhaps understandably) talk about a "DOS prompt", a "DOS window" or "DOS commands" in the context of an NT-based version of Windows - it may have inherited a DOS-like command syntax, but the underlying OS is completely different.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,607
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
And windows 7 is not built on top of it.
Since you all refuse to read the words I wrote and decided to do your own translations I'll put it in bigger letters
You have to ask yourself why Microsoft decided to take MSDOS away but then decided to use the same commands with the same parameters that run on a CLI.
Even though it isn't MSDOS it still very much acts like it no matter what technical buff you throw my way.
I still use those commands in batch files every day since 1988.
I'll leave you with this old saying:
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck (even though it might have metal legs now).
You're still wrong, there isn't DOS in the background (but I guess bigger text makes arguments more effective). However I doubt logic and reason can penetrate your field of self delusion, so I'm bowing out of this argument.
No amount of old sayings, backtracking or claims of misinterpretation can change the fact that you said "basically Windows 7 is still running with DOS in the background", which is completely wrong. But no, you're dmpoole so the thread has to stop in its tracks while you waste your time defending a position that numerous people can clearly see is wrong.
Microsoft used the same commands because they make sense to users, not because DOS still sits in the background.
No amount of old sayings, backtracking or claims of misinterpretation can change the fact that you said "basically Windows 7 is still running with DOS in the background", which is completely wrong. But no, you're dmpoole so the thread has to stop in its tracks while you waste your time defending a position that numerous people can clearly see is wrong.
Microsoft used the same commands because they make sense to users, not because DOS still sits in the background.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,759
I can't speak for the others, but I didn't read the words you didn't write, in big letters or not:
Original:
New version:
I suppose for the simple reason that, by and large, they worked OK and people were familiar with them. Having said that, NT's cmd.exe has internal commands and functions that AFAIK weren't present in any version of command.com in DOS, and of course there are additional external commands (robocopy springs to mind).
It's an old saying but it's often wrong, definitely so in this case.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,759
I don't think it's "petty", at least any more so than the vast majority of subject matter that gets discussed here, and I don't see it as a "row" - the idea that even a modern (NT-based) version of Windows is still running on top of DOS is quite a common misconception and it really needs nailing.Wow what a petty row!
Move on people!
I'm sure dmpoole didn't mean to give that impression, but there's no harm in clarifying the position IMNSHO.
I don't think it's "petty", at least any more so than the vast majority of subject matter that gets discussed here, and I don't see it as a "row" - the idea that even a modern (NT-based) version of Windows is still running on top of DOS is quite a common misconception and it really needs nailing.
I'm sure dmpoole didn't mean to give that impression, but there's no harm in clarifying the position IMNSHO.
It's petty when it is obvious it wont be resolved. Especially when the giant bold text was deployed!
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,759
There is admittedly no answer to the giant bold text; I suppose it's rather pointless to continue once the nuclear option has been used.It's petty when it is obvious it wont be resolved. Especially when the giant bold text was deployed!
Because they introduced a GUI.
No matter how many times I read your post I can't understand it other than "DOS is still running in the background," which it isn't.
But I guess we all must be too stupid to understand this, so just through your toys around and big letters but it was what you wrote. And editing your original post with BIG LETTERS, doesn't help your case.