AIN'T NO DOS?

[Pop]

I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?

Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?

You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!

If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
information will be appreciated and not actually be an
attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
facts, at that.

Regards, believe it or not,

Pop



--

---
What kind of animals kills its own?

[Gordon]

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?

It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.

[Kelly Cotter]

"Gordon" > wrote in message

> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
>> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
>> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
>> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.

whats dos ???????

:-)

[Gordon]

"Kelly Cotter" > wrote
in message ...
>
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
>
> > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> >> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> >> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> >> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
>
> whats dos ???????
>
> :-)
>
>

Disk Operating System. What computers used before Windows.

[Crusty \(-: Old B@stard :-\)]

Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they included DOS in their
operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS frequently. You see,
they don't know about this. It would be nice if you tell them!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
>
> You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> facts, at that.
>
> Regards, believe it or not,
>
> Pop
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> What kind of animals kills its own?
>
>

[gls858]

Pop wrote:

> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
>
> You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> facts, at that.
>
> Regards, believe it or not,
>
> Pop
>
>
>
DOS? We don't need no stinkin' DOS :-)

gls858

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

When they ask about it, they have already run into trouble in that their DOS
applications or some DOS applications don't work or won't install.

We've giving them the facts....You are the one playing semantics and with
this post, you are confusing those newbies who already can't get their DOS
game or some other application to run in XP. And why won't it run in XP
when it ran without issue on Windows 9x? Why indeed. Windows 9x was built
on DOS code and most Windows 9x systems can still exit to DOS, XP can't; why
not, there is no DOS in XP. There are some command line tools, many of
which have the same name and appear to work the same as in DOS but most of
that simply lets a user comfortable with such things work with a command
line and do so using XP's DOS emulator and even of those don't work.

It has a DOS emulator.

You would better serve the community at large by helping those you think we
are misleading by helping them run in DOS in XP since you think it exists
rather than excoriating us based on misinformation, misinterpretation and
your own opinion, uninformed though it may be.
--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
>I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
>
> You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> facts, at that.
>
> Regards, believe it or not,
>
> Pop
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> What kind of animals kills its own?
>
>

[Tom]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> "Kelly Cotter" >
wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > "Gordon" > wrote in message
> >
> > > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> > >> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> > >> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> > >> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > >
> > > It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
> >
> > whats dos ???????
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
>
> Disk Operating System. What computers used before Windows.
>

LOL, computers didn't just revolve around MS based OSes ya know!

[Gordon]

"Tom" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kelly Cotter" >
> wrote
> > in message ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gordon" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> > > >> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> > > >> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> > > >> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > > >
> > > > It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
> > >
> > > whats dos ???????
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Disk Operating System. What computers used before Windows.
> >
>
> LOL, computers didn't just revolve around MS based OSes ya know!
>

No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM etc etc, most of
which was probably before your time. I was answering the question "what is
dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.

Sheeeesh!

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:
> Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they included DOS in their
> operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS frequently.
> You see, they don't know about this. It would be nice if you tell
> them!

LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP contains Office?! The guy
needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid into me once calling me
names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that Office XP Students
and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!

I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
(http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also told someone else
that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher wouldn't activate on his
new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't know what OEM is
either!

The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his IQ tenfold just to be
considered an idiot!

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in message
...
> Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:
>> Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they included DOS in their
>> operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS frequently.
>> You see, they don't know about this. It would be nice if you tell
>> them!
>
> LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP contains Office?! The
> guy
> needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid into me once calling
> me
> names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that Office XP Students
> and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!
>
> I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
> (http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also told someone else
> that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher wouldn't activate on his
> new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't know what OEM is
> either!
>
> The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his IQ tenfold just to
> be
> considered an idiot!
>
>

[Cari \(MS MVP\)]

I'll add GEM DOS and DR DOS!
--
Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...

>
> No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM etc etc, most of
> which was probably before your time. I was answering the question "what is
> dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.
>
> Sheeeesh!
>
>

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)

Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You knew who I was,
right?! ;o)

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Yes, I knew, it meant enlightening about Pop!

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
>> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
>
> Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You knew who I was,
> right?! ;o)
>
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Here's a little something on the subject directly from Bill Gates:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47876,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
>> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
>
> Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You knew who I was,
> right?! ;o)
>
>

[Miss Appropriate]

Your s*it don't stink?


----- Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote: -----


The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his IQ tenfold just to be
considered an idiot!

[MGGP]

DOS is a word that means TWO in Spanish, that's all . . .

>-----Original Message-----
>I'll add GEM DOS and DR DOS!
>--
>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging &
Hardware)
>www.coribright.com
>
>"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM
etc etc, most of
>> which was probably before your time. I was answering
the question "what is
>> dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.
>>
>> Sheeeesh!
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>

[Mike]

and QDOS..

"Cari (MS MVP)" > wrote in message
...
> I'll add GEM DOS and DR DOS!
> --
> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
> www.coribright.com
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM etc etc, most of
> > which was probably before your time. I was answering the question "what
is
> > dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.
> >
> > Sheeeesh!
> >
> >
>
>

[RobertVA]

And Apple's DOS, Language System, ProDOS, ProDOS16 and all the Mac DOSs.

"Mike" > wrote in message
m...
> and QDOS..
>
> "Cari (MS MVP)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'll add GEM DOS and DR DOS!
> > --
> > Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
> > www.coribright.com
> >
> > "Gordon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM etc etc, most
of
> > > which was probably before your time. I was answering the question
"what
> is
> > > dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.
> > >
> > > Sheeeesh!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[RobertVA]

If a program uses standard BIOS functions for I/O it will work fine in the
"Command line" Virtual Machine. A significant number of complex
applications, including many games, were coded to use the hardware directly
and aren't compatable with the virtual machine as a result. The virtual
machine is designed to protect the operating system from application crashes
and violations of resources reserved for other applications and the
operating system itself. The DOS mode that allowed full hardware access for
DOS applications in earlier versions of Windows wouldn't be able to access
NTFS partitions either.

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
>
> You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> facts, at that.
>
> Regards, believe it or not,
>
> Pop
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> What kind of animals kills its own?
>
>

[Pop]

"Kelly Cotter"
>
wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
>
> > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably
sounds, and
> >> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> >> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
XP,
> >> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
>
> whats dos ???????
>
> :-)
>
>
denial of service?

[Pop]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
>
>
Did I say it wasn't? Why confuse the newbies with
extraneous junk facts if it isn't relevant to their post, as
most people here do?
Your response even here is typical; it's not relevant to
MY post. But, at least you did NOT say there is no DOS when
MS uses the term all over the place! Newbies need to learn,
not be confused by facts that aren't yet relevant to them!
Pop

[Pop]

Ooohhh, I forgot gemdos! And how about Commodore's dos?
And apple dos?
"Cari (MS MVP)" > wrote in
message ...
> I'll add GEM DOS and DR DOS!
> --
> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging &
Hardware)
> www.coribright.com
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > No of course not, dork! there was MS Dos, PC Dos, C/PM
etc etc, most of
> > which was probably before your time. I was answering the
question "what is
> > dos" if you didn't manage to read ALL the post.
> >
> > Sheeeesh!
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:226379


"Tom" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kelly Cotter"
>
> wrote
> > in message
...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gordon" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably
sounds, and
> > > >> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> > > >> you who love the confusing fact that there is no
DOS in XP,
> > > >> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > > >
> > > > It's a DOS emulator. It is NOT dos.
> > >
> > > whats dos ???????
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Disk Operating System. What computers used before
Windows.
> >
>
> LOL, computers didn't just revolve around MS based OSes ya
know!
>
Yeah, it could have been drdos with a little change in
history! Or even cp/m!

[Pop]

LOL! Nahh, let 'em vet their own documents! They aren't
wrong, they just took a common sense approach is all.
OK, WHO SAID THAT! MICROSOFT? COMMON SENSE??

Pop

"Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)"
> wrote in message
...
> Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they included
DOS in their
> operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS
frequently. You see,
> they don't know about this. It would be nice if you tell
them!
>
> --
> Regards:
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
front of
> > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
you
> > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
distinguish
> > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> >
> > You would better serve the community at large
-quit-
> > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
is N
> > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
sick
> > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
use
> > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
it's
> > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
your
> > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
irrelevant
> > facts, at that.
> >
> > Regards, believe it or not,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---
> > What kind of animals kills its own?
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

inline
"Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in
message ...
> Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:
> > Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they included
DOS in their
> > operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS
frequently.
> > You see, they don't know about this. It would be nice if
you tell
> > them!
>
> LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP contains
Office?!
== Yup, my windowsXP (machine) does indeed include Office
AND is located IN my office!!

The guy
> needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid into
me once calling me

No, I did not lay you. Perish that thought!

> names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that
Office XP Students
> and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!
You are a very big prude if you cannot repeat those words!
Try it, you'll like it, dark hole!

>
> I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
> (http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also
told someone else
Oh come on, you can too be "arsed".

> that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher wouldn't
activate on his
> new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't
know what OEM is
> either!
I don't have XP Pro with publisher, so activating is a moot
point.

>
> The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his IQ
tenfold just to be
> considered an idiot!
Umm, so you know the difference, eh? Now, THAT is
interesting! You must be sitting on something interesting
right now.

If ya got nothing good to say, ...


>
>

[Pop]

Well, Mike, I guess you'll be the second "MVP" I add to my
unable to read or comprehend list, and that's too bad. One
of two of your response were close to excellent, but you're
inconsistant and can't be bothered to read. That explains
why a couple of your responses were so far off base when it
seemed obvious; you weren't really helping, you were being
narcissistic.

That's not to say I disrespect MVP's: It is however to say
that I disrespect you and one other. Any community has
chaff and a wrong side of town, so ... maybe you'll move
someday and find a better neighborhood for your feelings.
The vast majority of MVPs on this board are very real, very
helpful people who know how to act professionally, do their
job to the terms of the MVP agreement (yes, I read it), and
are good at reading comprehension and assimilating input.
You can be proud of your surroundings at least, if not much
else.

I still, and always will, contend that the verbiage and
syntax of the OS should be used in conversing with those too
new to know just which questions to ask about what, and that
the mojority of responders on this and other boards are too
proud of knowing a simple, usually irrelevant fact, which is
used as an excuse or a fill in, but is almost always NOT
relevant to the OP's question/s. I've watched this going on
for a long time and it just keeps getting worse. If your
campaign is to educate on the DOS relationship, feel free,
but when it's NOT relevant to the posed question, switch it
over to an aside, or a BTW. Be sensible and consider the
plight of those who are asking you the questions.

Yeah, I know I' acting like a cop, so make all the
statements you want, but realize that also applies to you.
Plonk me if you wish; it doesn't worry me. Flame if you
wish because it's entertainment. But the REAL way to get me
off your back is to stop the foolishness of showing off
knowledge under the pretense of anwering another's question
and pretending it's important when it isn't, as is usually
the case.

It's pretty sure you either haven't bothered to read this,
or don't understand what it says if you did, so I'll rest my
finners now and say ad'ieu.

Pop

"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> wrote in message
...
> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:
> >> Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they
included DOS in their
> >> operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS
frequently.
> >> You see, they don't know about this. It would be nice
if you tell
> >> them!
> >
> > LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP
contains Office?! The
> > guy
> > needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid
into me once calling
> > me
> > names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that
Office XP Students
> > and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!
> >
> > I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
> > (http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also
told someone else
> > that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher
wouldn't activate on his
> > new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't
know what OEM is
> > either!
> >
> > The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his
IQ tenfold just to
> > be
> > considered an idiot!
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

Oh my gawd, is that one of those old hypes where Billy says
dos is a thing of the past and spam will be joining it by
the end of 2004? I read wired fairly often, and I don't
beleive I ever said what you wish I'd say about DOS,
because, obviously, if you could comprehend what you read,
you would know I understand the situation.
Do you actually think that newbie reads "DOS" or "MSDOS"
in the Help & Support, and then YOU come along and tell them
there IS NO DOS? Or, when the docs say dos progs will run
in XP, and YOU contradict that? Yes, people DO read the
docs as saying that their dos progs should run under XP.
Now, that link is probably an EXCELLENT way for you to
give a newbie some side-information, IF you present it
properly, AND include a couple of other relevant links so
that the poster can get the correct idea?

start;
"I have a DOS game; will it run in XP?"
"Thre is no DOS in XP"
end;

That's the kind of posts this place is loaded with! And you
are helping to pertetuate that! It's incomplete,
irrelevant, and silly. And, in several cases, narcissistic.
Yes, I like that word; it's applicable, and you seem to be
sliding into it nicely.

Have fun Mike; sorry if you are Peter(ing principle) out!

Pop


"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> wrote in message
...
> Here's a little something on the subject directly from
Bill Gates:
>
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47876,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
> >> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
> >
> > Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You
knew who I was,
> > right?! ;o)
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Now who is play with semantics?

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> Oh my gawd, is that one of those old hypes where Billy says
> dos is a thing of the past and spam will be joining it by
> the end of 2004? I read wired fairly often, and I don't
> beleive I ever said what you wish I'd say about DOS,
> because, obviously, if you could comprehend what you read,
> you would know I understand the situation.
> Do you actually think that newbie reads "DOS" or "MSDOS"
> in the Help & Support, and then YOU come along and tell them
> there IS NO DOS? Or, when the docs say dos progs will run
> in XP, and YOU contradict that? Yes, people DO read the
> docs as saying that their dos progs should run under XP.
> Now, that link is probably an EXCELLENT way for you to
> give a newbie some side-information, IF you present it
> properly, AND include a couple of other relevant links so
> that the poster can get the correct idea?
>
> start;
> "I have a DOS game; will it run in XP?"
> "Thre is no DOS in XP"
> end;
>
> That's the kind of posts this place is loaded with! And you
> are helping to pertetuate that! It's incomplete,
> irrelevant, and silly. And, in several cases, narcissistic.
> Yes, I like that word; it's applicable, and you seem to be
> sliding into it nicely.
>
> Have fun Mike; sorry if you are Peter(ing principle) out!
>
> Pop
>
>
> "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's a little something on the subject directly from
> Bill Gates:
>>
> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47876,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
>>
>> --
>> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
>> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>>
>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in
> message
>> ...
>> > Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
>> >> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
>> >
>> > Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You
> knew who I was,
>> > right?! ;o)
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

If you have a complaint about me, I suggest you take it up with Microsoft or
my MVP group leader, Brian Boston.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> Well, Mike, I guess you'll be the second "MVP" I add to my
> unable to read or comprehend list, and that's too bad. One
> of two of your response were close to excellent, but you're
> inconsistant and can't be bothered to read. That explains
> why a couple of your responses were so far off base when it
> seemed obvious; you weren't really helping, you were being
> narcissistic.
>
> That's not to say I disrespect MVP's: It is however to say
> that I disrespect you and one other. Any community has
> chaff and a wrong side of town, so ... maybe you'll move
> someday and find a better neighborhood for your feelings.
> The vast majority of MVPs on this board are very real, very
> helpful people who know how to act professionally, do their
> job to the terms of the MVP agreement (yes, I read it), and
> are good at reading comprehension and assimilating input.
> You can be proud of your surroundings at least, if not much
> else.
>
> I still, and always will, contend that the verbiage and
> syntax of the OS should be used in conversing with those too
> new to know just which questions to ask about what, and that
> the mojority of responders on this and other boards are too
> proud of knowing a simple, usually irrelevant fact, which is
> used as an excuse or a fill in, but is almost always NOT
> relevant to the OP's question/s. I've watched this going on
> for a long time and it just keeps getting worse. If your
> campaign is to educate on the DOS relationship, feel free,
> but when it's NOT relevant to the posed question, switch it
> over to an aside, or a BTW. Be sensible and consider the
> plight of those who are asking you the questions.
>
> Yeah, I know I' acting like a cop, so make all the
> statements you want, but realize that also applies to you.
> Plonk me if you wish; it doesn't worry me. Flame if you
> wish because it's entertainment. But the REAL way to get me
> off your back is to stop the foolishness of showing off
> knowledge under the pretense of anwering another's question
> and pretending it's important when it isn't, as is usually
> the case.
>
> It's pretty sure you either haven't bothered to read this,
> or don't understand what it says if you did, so I'll rest my
> finners now and say ad'ieu.
>
> Pop
>
> "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank you, Miss, for the enlightening reference.:-)
>>
>> --
>> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
>> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>>
>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" > wrote in
> message
>> ...
>> > Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:
>> >> Guess you had better notify Microsoft that they
> included DOS in their
>> >> operating system, and that the system utilizes said DOS
> frequently.
>> >> You see, they don't know about this. It would be nice
> if you tell
>> >> them!
>> >
>> > LOL!! Did you know he also thinks that Windows XP
> contains Office?! The
>> > guy
>> > needs a good going over with a clue-by-four. He laid
> into me once calling
>> > me
>> > names I daren't not repeat because I told someone that
> Office XP Students
>> > and Teachers was a per system licence (which it is)!
>> >
>> > I can't be arsed to copy and paste but the link is here
>> > (http://tinyurl.com/yrafm) if you're interested! He also
> told someone else
>> > that the reason his Office XP Pro with Publisher
> wouldn't activate on his
>> > new system was because it was pirated - yep, he doesn't
> know what OEM is
>> > either!
>> >
>> > The guy is a complete moron - he needs to increase his
> IQ tenfold just to
>> > be
>> > considered an idiot!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[XS11E]

"Tom" > wrote in
:
>> > whats dos ???????
>> >
>> > :-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Disk Operating System. What computers used before Windows.
>>
>
> LOL, computers didn't just revolve around MS based OSes ya know!

No, but every computer with a disk drive of any type runs DOS, it's NOT
a Microsoft term.

[XS11E]

"RobertVA" > wrote in
:

> And Apple's DOS, Language System, ProDOS, ProDOS16 and all the Mac
> DOSs.

You forgot TRSDOS for TRS 80 systems....

[Brazen]

You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like that....

Anyway....

Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to be stuck wondering why
his/her game will not run if WinXP does contain DOS.

A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct, and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could POSSIBLY run your game.

[Pop]

"Brazen" > wrote in
message
...
> You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
that....
>
> Anyway....
>
> Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
does contain DOS.
>
> A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
POSSIBLY run your game.

Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
than caring or useful people.

I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
xp". as happend over and over.
I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
Good riddance either way.

Regards,

Pop

[David Candy]

No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate =
you. We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you =
for the wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows =
either. As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, =
Posix, and OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - =
not in Dos). However NT has it's own programming environment called NT =
Native Mode programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also =
conclude that there is no Windows either.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Pop" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Brazen" > wrote in
> message
> ...
> > You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
> take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
> that....
> >
> > Anyway....
> >
> > Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
> WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
> potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
> work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
> be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
> does contain DOS.
> >
> > A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
> and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
> newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
> POSSIBLY run your game.
>=20
> Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
> DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
> further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
> more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
> happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
> different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
> was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
> and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
> than caring or useful people.
>=20
> I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
> Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
> was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
> could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
> it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
> him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
> getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
> that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
> PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
> to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
> going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
> xp". as happend over and over.
> I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
> f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
> that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
> seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
> taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
> Good riddance either way.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Pop
>=20
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly acceptable, I suppose I
could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS environment but
there is a DOS emulator.

The problem is context, in that users are asking specifically if they can do
something that is either no longer supported or can't be done because if
they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to see their files if
they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even more confusion. I
could just stop referencing DOS altogether in my responses on this type of
issue and simply provide the user with instructions on what to do, ignoring
their DOS reference altogether. But that doesn't really speak to the issue
either and I know, if we don't mention it in response to a question in which
it was referenced, at least some will come back with the question "Why can't
I do it in DOS," which for anybody listening, is a reference to MS-DOS!:-)

Your points nonetheless, are well taken. But, maybe we, you and I, aren't
so far apart in that, aren't you really talking about Code versus
environment? Since many of the commands would go unrecognized and users
would only end up more frustrated. "Well, why doesn't it work, you said it
was there!" I'm sure you see my point. It ain't your granddaddy's MS-DOS,
it's changed and morphed and is something quite different even if there is
an emulator and even if we say MS-DOS is a building block of Windows.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate you.
We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you for the
wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows either.
As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, Posix, and
OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - not in Dos).
However NT has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode
programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also
conclude that there is no Windows either.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Pop" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brazen" > wrote in
> message
> ...
> > You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
> take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
> that....
> >
> > Anyway....
> >
> > Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
> WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
> potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
> work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
> be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
> does contain DOS.
> >
> > A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
> and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
> newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
> POSSIBLY run your game.
>
> Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
> DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
> further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
> more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
> happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
> different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
> was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
> and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
> than caring or useful people.
>
> I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
> Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
> was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
> could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
> it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
> him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
> getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
> that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
> PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
> to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
> going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
> xp". as happend over and over.
> I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
> f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
> that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
> seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
> taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
> Good riddance either way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop
>
>

[David Candy]

Generally speaking the answer "there is no dos" is frequently given to =
people trying to run Dos apps. Most dos apps written towards the end of =
Dos's lifetime won't run, due to insufficient memory, without =
configuration. However they wouldn't have run on a real Dos machine =
either without configuration.

There are other configuration issues as well. All would have needed to =
be addressed on Dos. XP's Dos, designed to run Line Of Business apps, =
gives tons of memory to networking (and other typical corporate =
requirements). Home user programs typically didn't use networking but =
did require the memory that networking took. The program's manual will =
nearly always say what to do to configure the program.

Any Dos program written to the Dos API will work. Nearly all common =
departures from the API including direct hardware access will work. With =
the addition of a vxd any dos program can access hardware (really access =
it). MS provide vxds (built in) for common hardware such as keyboards, =
mouses, serial ports, and printer ports. If the program switches to a =
video mode that XP doesn't support it makes the program full screen =
(thus allowing it direct access to the hardware), if it support it it =
emulates the hardware.

Except for protected mode memory managers (and some are supported) and =
programs using sound cards nearly any non disk utility should work or be =
configured to work (which configuration would have been needed in a dos =
environment anyway).

I know that some questions are "how do I boot to dos". But many aren't =
that get the answer "there is no dos".

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)" > wrote in =
message ...
> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly acceptable, I =
suppose I=20
> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS environment =
but=20
> there is a DOS emulator.
>=20
> The problem is context, in that users are asking specifically if they =
can do=20
> something that is either no longer supported or can't be done because =
if=20
> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to see their =
files if=20
> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even more =
confusion. I=20
> could just stop referencing DOS altogether in my responses on this =
type of=20
> issue and simply provide the user with instructions on what to do, =
ignoring=20
> their DOS reference altogether. But that doesn't really speak to the =
issue=20
> either and I know, if we don't mention it in response to a question in =
which=20
> it was referenced, at least some will come back with the question "Why =
can't=20
> I do it in DOS," which for anybody listening, is a reference to =
MS-DOS!:-)
>=20
> Your points nonetheless, are well taken. But, maybe we, you and I, =
aren't=20
> so far apart in that, aren't you really talking about Code versus=20
> environment? Since many of the commands would go unrecognized and =
users=20
> would only end up more frustrated. "Well, why doesn't it work, you =
said it=20
> was there!" I'm sure you see my point. It ain't your granddaddy's =
MS-DOS,=20
> it's changed and morphed and is something quite different even if =
there is=20
> an emulator and even if we say MS-DOS is a building block of Windows.
>=20
> --=20
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>=20
> "David Candy" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate =
you.=20
> We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you for =
the=20
> wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.
>=20
> As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows =
either.=20
> As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, Posix, =
and=20
> OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - not in =
Dos).=20
> However NT has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode=20
> programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).
>=20
> By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also=20
> conclude that there is no Windows either.
>=20
> --=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
> "Pop" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> >
> > "Brazen" > wrote in
> > message
> > ...
> > > You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
> > take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
> > that....
> > >
> > > Anyway....
> > >
> > > Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
> > WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
> > potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
> > work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
> > be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
> > does contain DOS.
> > >
> > > A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
> > and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
> > newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
> > POSSIBLY run your game.
> >
> > Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
> > DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
> > further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
> > more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
> > happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
> > different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
> > was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
> > and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
> > than caring or useful people.
> >
> > I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
> > Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
> > was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
> > could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
> > it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
> > him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
> > getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
> > that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
> > PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
> > to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
> > going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
> > xp". as happend over and over.
> > I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
> > f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
> > that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
> > seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
> > taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
> > Good riddance either way.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >=20
>=20
>

[Pop]

LOL! THAT'S humiliating me? Your reading comprehension is
as as dismal as your retort-ability and your wishes for
others to commit suicide! At least you've let off a little
on the f word, you little f'er, but you still make a great
case against yourself; that ability stays with you at least.
BTW, if you have the experience you claim to have, then
you should know that these posts aren't going to humiliate,
embarass or otherwise discomfort me, nor should you be
feeling the anger you are feeling. Good advice for any ng,
let alone this one.
I think I can pretty precisely see why you didnt' make
it as an active MVP ng poster. Are you aware of what O.D.D.
is?

Enjoy,

Pop


"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to
humilate you. We just happen to be on the same side in this
issue. Although you for the wrong reasons and me for the
right reasons.

As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have
Windows either. As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed
in to NT, Windows, Posix, and OS/2 (which is where Dos
programs were excuted by default - not in Dos). However NT
has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode
programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).

By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one
must also conclude that there is no Windows either.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Pop" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brazen" > wrote in
> message
> ...
> > You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
> take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
> that....
> >
> > Anyway....
> >
> > Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
> WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading
and
> potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does
not
> work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going
to
> be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
> does contain DOS.
> >
> > A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
> and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
> newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
> POSSIBLY run your game.
>
> Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP
CONTAINS
> DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation
or
> further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
> more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because
it
> happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
> different responders, The response was incomplete, the
data
> was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this
group
> and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
> than caring or useful people.
>
> I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
> Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what
it
> was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when
newbie
> could easily have that in front of him or might shortly
have
> it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP"
to
> him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
> getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
> that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
> PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
> to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then
he's
> going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
> xp". as happend over and over.
> I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with
is
> f-words and instructions to people to go and commit
suicide
> that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
> seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's
either
> taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't
shine.
> Good riddance either way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop
>
>

[Pop]

Mike,
Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
explain, although in principle it's relatively simple, and
easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear to
me to be clear and concise. Good work.

Regards,

Pop


"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> wrote in message
...
> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly
acceptable, I suppose I
> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS
environment but
> there is a DOS emulator.
>
> The problem is context, in that users are asking
specifically if they can do
> something that is either no longer supported or can't be
done because if
> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to
see their files if
> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
more
....
<snip>

[Pop]

Oh, man, David, why don't you go back to bed? You need a
good, long rest!

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
Generally speaking the answer "there is no dos" is
frequently given to people trying to run Dos apps. Most dos
apps written towards the end of Dos's lifetime won't run,
== My physican experience stonglhy refutes that.

due to insufficient memory,
== Of the many DOS apps I still do run, and a bunch of
games for the foster kids, I have seen exactly THREE of
approximately 1,000 DOS apps that won't run (it's the 1,000
games CD dummy, don't argue with me about numbers).

without configuration.
== All three of the ones with memory related errors were
"fixed" by using compatability mode. I guess the actual
figure of runnable dos apps might be about 1, 061 at a quick
estimate by glancing at directory contents, and not counting
a bunch of libraries, etc..

However they wouldn't have run on a real Dos machine either
without configuration.
== ?? That's silly and conficts common sense AND your own
statements. Misspeak maybe?
"dos apps written towards the end of Dos's lifetime won't
run" is patently untrue UNLESS you limit your experience to
crap you or others like you tried to compile. They work
fine all the way up through 6, 95, and 98.

There are other configuration issues as well. All would have
needed to be addressed on Dos.
== Yup, and most coded writers handled them very well and
with lightning speed compared to writing the gui spaghetti
it sounds like you are used to. BTW, I'ts DOS or D.O.S. or
dos, or ... but not Dos. You shouldn't use autotexts to
write emails.

XP's Dos, designed to run Line Of Business apps, gives tons
of
== Gasp!! XP's "Dos"?? What Dos?

<irrelevant crap snipped>

I know that some questions are "how do I boot to dos". But
many aren't that get the answer "there is no dos".
=== And, that means?

....
Pop

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

All points well taken.

For the sake of brevity and not wanting to further confuse users to whom I
respond on the subject, I will likely stick to a boiler plate introductory
as follows:

"Though there is a DOS emulator, there is no DOS environment in XP as you
remember it from Windows 9x, hence some of things you are used to doing are
either no longer supported or can't be done..."

After the above intro, I will then endeavor to give them information on how
the task might be accomplished. In my case, the questions to which I
usually respond on this subject usually have to deal with recovery or
recovering files though, sometimes I also respond to questions of why they
are having problems running a particular application.

There is also the case of those who ask before purchasing XP whether or not
their DOS apps will run, a question we really can't answer in advance with
any certainty. I usually tell them, if they have mission critical
applications they must continue to use, they should either maintain their
current machine or dual boot their new system or setup with their current OS
in order to better ensure compatibility.
--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
Generally speaking the answer "there is no dos" is frequently given to
people trying to run Dos apps. Most dos apps written towards the end of
Dos's lifetime won't run, due to insufficient memory, without configuration.
However they wouldn't have run on a real Dos machine either without
configuration.

There are other configuration issues as well. All would have needed to be
addressed on Dos. XP's Dos, designed to run Line Of Business apps, gives
tons of memory to networking (and other typical corporate requirements).
Home user programs typically didn't use networking but did require the
memory that networking took. The program's manual will nearly always say
what to do to configure the program.

Any Dos program written to the Dos API will work. Nearly all common
departures from the API including direct hardware access will work. With the
addition of a vxd any dos program can access hardware (really access it). MS
provide vxds (built in) for common hardware such as keyboards, mouses,
serial ports, and printer ports. If the program switches to a video mode
that XP doesn't support it makes the program full screen (thus allowing it
direct access to the hardware), if it support it it emulates the hardware.

Except for protected mode memory managers (and some are supported) and
programs using sound cards nearly any non disk utility should work or be
configured to work (which configuration would have been needed in a dos
environment anyway).

I know that some questions are "how do I boot to dos". But many aren't that
get the answer "there is no dos".

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)" > wrote in
message ...
> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly acceptable, I suppose I
> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS environment but
> there is a DOS emulator.
>
> The problem is context, in that users are asking specifically if they can
> do
> something that is either no longer supported or can't be done because if
> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to see their files if
> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even more confusion. I
> could just stop referencing DOS altogether in my responses on this type of
> issue and simply provide the user with instructions on what to do,
> ignoring
> their DOS reference altogether. But that doesn't really speak to the
> issue
> either and I know, if we don't mention it in response to a question in
> which
> it was referenced, at least some will come back with the question "Why
> can't
> I do it in DOS," which for anybody listening, is a reference to MS-DOS!:-)
>
> Your points nonetheless, are well taken. But, maybe we, you and I, aren't
> so far apart in that, aren't you really talking about Code versus
> environment? Since many of the commands would go unrecognized and users
> would only end up more frustrated. "Well, why doesn't it work, you said
> it
> was there!" I'm sure you see my point. It ain't your granddaddy's
> MS-DOS,
> it's changed and morphed and is something quite different even if there is
> an emulator and even if we say MS-DOS is a building block of Windows.
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "David Candy" > wrote in message
> ...
> No, I'm here dickwad. I watching and waiting for a chance to humilate you.
> We just happen to be on the same side in this issue. Although you for the
> wrong reasons and me for the right reasons.
>
> As I always say, if XP doesn't have Dos then it doesn't have Windows
> either.
> As windows is one of 3 sub systems designed in to NT, Windows, Posix, and
> OS/2 (which is where Dos programs were excuted by default - not in Dos).
> However NT has it's own programming environment called NT Native Mode
> programs (eg the disk checker at boot is one).
>
> By the same critera that people use to say no Dos then one must also
> conclude that there is no Windows either.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brazen" > wrote in
> > message
> > ...
> > > You can take the Windows out of the DOS, but you can't
> > take the DOS out of the Windows.... or something like
> > that....
> > >
> > > Anyway....
> > >
> > > Responding to the question "Will my DOS game work in
> > WinXP" with "WinXP does contain DOS" will be misleading and
> > potentially harmfull to a newbie. What if the game does not
> > work (a highly likely possibility)? The newbie is going to
> > be stuck wondering why his/her game will not run if WinXP
> > does contain DOS.
> > >
> > > A better approach would be to keep is simple, succinct,
> > and accurate (the best approach in any situation with a
> > newbie): Windows XP contains DOS emulation that could
> > POSSIBLY run your game.
> >
> > Sort of agreed. I don't think anyone ever said XP CONTAINS
> > DOS, but they have told newbies, and without explanation or
> > further information, that XP does NOT contain DOS. That's
> > more than a "potential" problem, it's a real one because it
> > happened, 6 times one particular evening in fact, by three
> > different responders, The response was incomplete, the data
> > was incorrect in its implication, and it colored this group
> > and its many intelligent and caring contributors as less
> > than caring or useful people.
> >
> > I did however, once say to look up DOS in the XP Help &
> > Support, and stated the number of hits I got; forget what it
> > was, but it was high,over a hundred. Now, why, when newbie
> > could easily have that in front of him or might shortly have
> > it in front of him, would one want to say "no DOS in XP" to
> > him? It's silly and irrelevant. That's the peeve I was
> > getting at and it seems to have garnered enough attention
> > that I n otice very few such events occurring recently.
> > PERCEPTION if 99% of realithy and if a newbie perceives xp
> > to have dos, and he sees it in the ms help files, then he's
> > going to look funny at anyone just blurting out "no dos in
> > xp". as happend over and over.
> > I think it was the guy with the MVP email address with is
> > f-words and instructions to people to go and commit suicide
> > that really made me decide to rant around. I notice he/it
> > seems to have disappeared for the time being so it's either
> > taken a new name or went back to where the sun don't shine.
> > Good riddance either way.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

That will likely be my boiler plate response to the DOS question in the
future which will intro the rest of the response explaining what they can do
instead of what they thought they could do.

If you are going to reestablish rapport with me, you will have to stop
calling me "Mike" and start calling me Michael!:-)

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
> Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
> basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
> explain, although in principle it's relatively simple, and
> easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear to
> me to be clear and concise. Good work.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop
>
>
> "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly
> acceptable, I suppose I
>> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS
> environment but
>> there is a DOS emulator.
>>
>> The problem is context, in that users are asking
> specifically if they can do
>> something that is either no longer supported or can't be
> done because if
>> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to
> see their files if
>> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
> more
> ...
> <snip>
>
>

[David Candy]

But astronauts are always called Dave or Mike, never David or Michael.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)" > wrote in =
message ...
> That will likely be my boiler plate response to the DOS question in =
the=20
> future which will intro the rest of the response explaining what they =
can do=20
> instead of what they thought they could do.
>=20
> If you are going to reestablish rapport with me, you will have to stop =

> calling me "Mike" and start calling me Michael!:-)
>=20
> --=20
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>=20
> "Pop" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> > Mike,
> > Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
> > basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
> > explain, although in principle it's relatively simple, and
> > easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear to
> > me to be clear and concise. Good work.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> > "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly
> > acceptable, I suppose I
> >> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS
> > environment but
> >> there is a DOS emulator.
> >>
> >> The problem is context, in that users are asking
> > specifically if they can do
> >> something that is either no longer supported or can't be
> > done because if
> >> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to
> > see their files if
> >> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
> > more
> > ...
> > <snip>
> >
> >=20
>=20
>

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

And David is my middle name!:-)

I'm not sure "moonwalking" qualifies, hence, I am Michael!

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
But astronauts are always called Dave or Mike, never David or Michael.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)" > wrote in
message ...
> That will likely be my boiler plate response to the DOS question in the
> future which will intro the rest of the response explaining what they can
> do
> instead of what they thought they could do.
>
> If you are going to reestablish rapport with me, you will have to stop
> calling me "Mike" and start calling me Michael!:-)
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike,
> > Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
> > basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
> > explain, although in principle it's relatively simple, and
> > easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear to
> > me to be clear and concise. Good work.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> > "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly
> > acceptable, I suppose I
> >> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no DOS
> > environment but
> >> there is a DOS emulator.
> >>
> >> The problem is context, in that users are asking
> > specifically if they can do
> >> something that is either no longer supported or can't be
> > done because if
> >> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to
> > see their files if
> >> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
> > more
> > ...
> > <snip>
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in re-establising a
"rapport" with you, and was/am simply stating fact. If you
like something I say, great, and if you don't, well, them's
the facts of life. I say what I mean and I mean what I say;
it's that simple. I don't know you, likely never will, and
I'm sure you have no wish to know me, so unless something
unusual comes about, we are likely to always be what we are
now; online incidental acquaintances. I respect you for
your contributions to this newsgroup and in general I find
you to be factual and fairly concise in your reponses.
Rapport is the furthest thing from my mind. I cannot, but
if there is every anything I can ever do to help you, I
would, along with many, many other people in these groups.
You may be a fine person, or a real whacko I'd be embarassed
to have as a neighbor: It's unimportant and totally outside
the scope of this particular relationship.

Since I do respect you, I will refrain from calling you
Mike, should the occasion arise again, but only because it
is a sign of respect for your position and your abilities
and nothing more. Personally I find those who insist on
being called "Thomas" or Michael et al slightly pompous, but
I also realize that's usually a family insistance rather
than one of ego-centricity; most of the time at least.

So, with that, I'll say so long, cooly and without fanfare,
and thanks for your contributions.

Pop



"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> wrote in message
...
> That will likely be my boiler plate response to the DOS
question in the
> future which will intro the rest of the response
explaining what they can do
> instead of what they thought they could do.
>
> If you are going to reestablish rapport with me, you will
have to stop
> calling me "Mike" and start calling me Michael!:-)
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike,
> > Excellent; in fact, that's good enough I may use it as a
> > basis for my own explanations; it's a tough subject to
> > explain, although in principle it's relatively simple,
and
> > easily confuses many new users. Your statements appear
to
> > me to be clear and concise. Good work.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> > "Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On that explanation, David, which I find perfectly
> > acceptable, I suppose I
> >> could modify my own responses to the effect there's no
DOS
> > environment but
> >> there is a DOS emulator.
> >>
> >> The problem is context, in that users are asking
> > specifically if they can do
> >> something that is either no longer supported or can't
be
> > done because if
> >> they boot from a DOS boot disk they will not be able to
> > see their files if
> >> they are using NTFS. Also, the explanation may add even
> > more
> > ...
> > <snip>
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

And that's relevant; how? Are you still giving
consideration to suicide attempts? How many have you offed
or helped to off in your lifetime? I sure hope you're ...
oh well ... get help fast.

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
But astronauts are always called Dave or Mike, never David
or Michael.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)"
> wrote in message
...
> That will likely be my boiler plate response to the DOS
question in the
> ...

[Mike]

For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based 'Command and
Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no it won't because there is
essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer.. there is little point in
explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the various versions of
DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why some of the old
games do not appear to work.. any explanation is just an attempt at being
verbose, and is essentially splitting hairs.. It would be like being asked
why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the receptacle fitted to
'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole environmental and
engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the people would probably
die before the explanation was finished, or at the very least would wish
it..


"Pop" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
>
> Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
>
> You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> facts, at that.
>
> Regards, believe it or not,
>
> Pop
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> What kind of animals kills its own?
>
>

[David Candy]

Why is this a good answer. I haven't used C&C but Warcraft runs fine, GP =
Ver 1 runs, LHX Attack Chopper runs fine, Quake 1 doesn't, Starflight II =
runs fine, Blood doesn't. So 4/6 of my dos games work.
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Mike" > wrote in message =
. ..
> For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based 'Command =
and
> Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no it won't because =
there is
> essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer.. there is little point in
> explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the various =
versions of
> DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why some of the =
old
> games do not appear to work.. any explanation is just an attempt at =
being
> verbose, and is essentially splitting hairs.. It would be like being =
asked
> why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the receptacle fitted =
to
> 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole environmental and
> engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the people would =
probably
> die before the explanation was finished, or at the very least would =
wish
> it..
>=20
>=20
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> >
> > You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> > facts, at that.
> >
> > Regards, believe it or not,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> >
> > --=20
> >
> > ---
> > What kind of animals kills its own?
> >
> >
>=20
>

[bxb7668]

I had somebody suggest the other day that they install Microsoft's
Virtual PC and DOS 6.22 and then their DOS game.

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
Why is this a good answer. I haven't used C&C but Warcraft runs fine,
GP Ver 1 runs, LHX Attack Chopper runs fine, Quake 1 doesn't,
Starflight II runs fine, Blood doesn't. So 4/6 of my dos games work.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Mike" > wrote in message
. ..
> For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based 'Command
and
> Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no it won't because
there is
> essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer.. there is little point
in
> explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the various
versions of
> DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why some of
the old
> games do not appear to work.. any explanation is just an attempt at
being
> verbose, and is essentially splitting hairs.. It would be like being
asked
> why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the receptacle
fitted to
> 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole environmental and
> engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the people would
probably
> die before the explanation was finished, or at the very least would
wish
> it..
>
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds, and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in front of
> > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do you
> > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't distinguish
> > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> >
> > You would better serve the community at large to -quit-
> > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it is N
> > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so sick
> > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I use
> > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and it's
> > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where your
> > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually irrelevant
> > facts, at that.
> >
> > Regards, believe it or not,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---
> > What kind of animals kills its own?
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

Sorry byte-breath, but that is incorrect and also not right,
besides being erroneous.
See inline:

"Mike" > had nothing useful to
say and said it in message
. ..
> For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based
'Command and
> Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no
== If you had actual experience, you would already know
that the answer is "probably, but it does depend on a few
things" blah...

it won't because
== Oh YES, it certainly will in a LOT of instances! MANY
will function just fine.

there is
> essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer..
== It's a meaningless answer and does not respond to the
spirit of the question asked, which is "will my software
work?". Way too many narcissists and ego-centrics wish more
to show their so called intelligence as opposed to actually
doing good for the poster. You appear to be well entrenched
in that group and even have a closed mind to boot.
== Try the "test" I suggested and counter that; try using
some verifiable facts.

there is little point in
> explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the
various versions of
> DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why
some of the old
> games do not appear to work..
== Correct, UNLESS it is properly couched in understandable
newbie-ese and meant to actually help as opposed to showing
off one's ego, AND if it seems relevant to the poster's well
being. Knowing how selfish and prideful you are is not
relevance.

any explanation is just an attempt at being
> verbose,
== One does not "attempt" to be verbose; he either is or he
isn't.

and is essentially splitting hairs..
== Or, in other words, egocentric. Not useful.

It would be like being asked
> why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the
receptacle fitted to
> 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole
environmental and
> engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the
people would probably
> die before the explanation was finished, or at the very
least would wish
> it..
== No, that is an incorrect analogy and not fitting. It
suggests a one-way street; you can fit the nozzle one way,
but not vice-versa. That is not analogous.



>
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
front of
> > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
you
> > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
distinguish
> > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> >
> > You would better serve the community at large
-quit-
> > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
is N
> > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
sick
> > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
use
> > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
it's
> > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
your
> > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
irrelevant
> > facts, at that.
> >
> > Regards, believe it or not,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---
> > What kind of animals kills its own?
> >
> >
>
>

[Pop]

"David Candy" > wrote in message
...
Why is this a good answer. I haven't used C&C but Warcraft
runs fine, GP Ver 1 runs, LHX Attack Chopper runs fine,
Quake 1 doesn't, Starflight II runs fine, Blood doesn't. So
4/6 of my dos games work.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Mike" > wrote in message
. ..
> For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based
'Command and
> Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no it won't
because there is
> essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer.. there is
little point in
> explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the
various versions of
> DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why
some of the old
> games do not appear to work.. any explanation is just an
attempt at being
> verbose, and is essentially splitting hairs.. It would be
like being asked
> why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the
receptacle fitted to
> 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole
environmental and
> engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the
people would probably
> die before the explanation was finished, or at the very
least would wish
> it..
>
>
> "Pop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
and
> > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
those of
> > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
XP,
> > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> >
> > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
front of
> > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
you
> > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
distinguish
> > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> >
> > You would better serve the community at large
-quit-
> > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
is N
> > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
sick
> > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
use
> > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
it's
> > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
your
> > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
irrelevant
> > facts, at that.
> >
> > Regards, believe it or not,
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---
> > What kind of animals kills its own?
> >
> >
>
>
What happens when you run Quake 1? My foster kids are
playing it at this moment and it seems to be fine albeit a
little old.

Pop

[David Candy]

If it's happy with paths, etc (which it's usually not and nothing =
happens)

Quake v1.06
Locked 1 Mb image
Locked 11 Mb data
malloc'd: 11837440
Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
General Protection Fault at eip=3D000452cb
eax=3Dfd35046c ebx=3D0011f220 ecx=3D0000ffff edx=3Dfd350000 =
esi=3D00000054 edi=3D000db354
ebp=3D0011b34c esp=3D0011b2a8 cs=3D01a7 ds=3D01af es=3D01af fs=3D01cf =
gs=3D01cf ss=3D01af
Call frame traceback EIPs:
0x000452cb

I had games using the same Dos Extender, one game works and one doesn't. =
Some may work in XP and some may only work on 9x. I've never been able =
to develop a pattern to the memory manager and what happens.=20
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Pop" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "David Candy" > wrote in message
> ...
> Why is this a good answer. I haven't used C&C but Warcraft
> runs fine, GP Ver 1 runs, LHX Attack Chopper runs fine,
> Quake 1 doesn't, Starflight II runs fine, Blood doesn't. So
> 4/6 of my dos games work.
> --=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based
> 'Command and
> > Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no it won't
> because there is
> > essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer.. there is
> little point in
> > explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the
> various versions of
> > DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why
> some of the old
> > games do not appear to work.. any explanation is just an
> attempt at being
> > verbose, and is essentially splitting hairs.. It would be
> like being asked
> > why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the
> receptacle fitted to
> > 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole
> environmental and
> > engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the
> people would probably
> > die before the explanation was finished, or at the very
> least would wish
> > it..
> >
> >
> > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
> and
> > > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
> those of
> > > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
> XP,
> > > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > >
> > > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
> front of
> > > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
> you
> > > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
> distinguish
> > > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> > >
> > > You would better serve the community at large
> -quit-
> > > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
> is N
> > > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
> sick
> > > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
> use
> > > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
> it's
> > > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
> your
> > > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
> irrelevant
> > > facts, at that.
> > >
> > > Regards, believe it or not,
> > >
> > > Pop
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --=20
> > >
> > > ---
> > > What kind of animals kills its own?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> What happens when you run Quake 1? My foster kids are
> playing it at this moment and it seems to be fine albeit a
> little old.
>=20
> Pop
>=20
>

[Del]

Well, I read ALL of the postings under this subject but did not find what I am looking for. Maybe I am in the wrong category (like the wrong number in a telephone menu). It did seem like there were at least a few persons in the LONG list of "submitters"
that had a great deal of knowledge (although it looks like the interest has run out).

Here is the problem. I have a friend that has used 4 of his "favorite" DOS programs in his newer Windows XP machine for over a year -- never any problem with any of them (the programs that worked are "First Choice", "Blakbook", an older DOS version of "Qu
icken" and a fourth one that I can not remember). Now after running for over a year ALL four of the programs cease to respond -- the screen just goes black for a couple of seconds and comes back to the desktop on which he has icons for the 4 programs (alo
ng with his other program icons). Apparently, nothing has changed on the NTFS system whatsoever (at least he can not remember any recent changes, additions, or deletions).

I wonder if any of the "experts" who have posted under this question might have any experience or suggestions about the above situation. I chose this "thread" because of the LARGE number of posts (must have attracted a lot of knowledgeable persons).

Thanks for reading. Any help or clue will be greatly appreciated. I really don't care if it is "real" DOS or an "emulator" -- I am just looking for a solution. Something in the system "very basic" must have been changed to cause ALL the programs to just
stop working.

=================================================

"Pop" wrote:

> Sorry byte-breath, but that is incorrect and also not right,
> besides being erroneous.
> See inline:
>
> "Mike" > had nothing useful to
> say and said it in message
> . ..
> > For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based
> 'Command and
> > Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no
> == If you had actual experience, you would already know
> that the answer is "probably, but it does depend on a few
> things" blah...
>
> it won't because
> == Oh YES, it certainly will in a LOT of instances! MANY
> will function just fine.
>
> there is
> > essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer..
> == It's a meaningless answer and does not respond to the
> spirit of the question asked, which is "will my software
> work?". Way too many narcissists and ego-centrics wish more
> to show their so called intelligence as opposed to actually
> doing good for the poster. You appear to be well entrenched
> in that group and even have a closed mind to boot.
> == Try the "test" I suggested and counter that; try using
> some verifiable facts.
>
> there is little point in
> > explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the
> various versions of
> > DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why
> some of the old
> > games do not appear to work..
> == Correct, UNLESS it is properly couched in understandable
> newbie-ese and meant to actually help as opposed to showing
> off one's ego, AND if it seems relevant to the poster's well
> being. Knowing how selfish and prideful you are is not
> relevance.
>
> any explanation is just an attempt at being
> > verbose,
> == One does not "attempt" to be verbose; he either is or he
> isn't.
>
> and is essentially splitting hairs..
> == Or, in other words, egocentric. Not useful.
>
> It would be like being asked
> > why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the
> receptacle fitted to
> > 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole
> environmental and
> > engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the
> people would probably
> > die before the explanation was finished, or at the very
> least would wish
> > it..
> == No, that is an incorrect analogy and not fitting. It
> suggests a one-way street; you can fit the nozzle one way,
> but not vice-versa. That is not analogous.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
> and
> > > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
> those of
> > > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
> XP,
> > > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > >
> > > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
> front of
> > > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
> you
> > > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
> distinguish
> > > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> > >
> > > You would better serve the community at large
> -quit-
> > > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
> is N
> > > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
> sick
> > > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
> use
> > > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
> it's
> > > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
> your
> > > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
> irrelevant
> > > facts, at that.
> > >
> > > Regards, believe it or not,
> > >
> > > Pop
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ---
> > > What kind of animals kills its own?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[gls858]

Del wrote:

> Well, I read ALL of the postings under this subject but did not find what I am looking for. Maybe I am in the wrong category (like the wrong number in a telephone menu). It did seem like there were at least a few persons in the LONG list of "submitters
" that had a great deal of knowledge (although it looks like the interest has run out).
>
> Here is the problem. I have a friend that has used 4 of his "favorite" DOS programs in his newer Windows XP machine for over a year -- never any problem with any of them (the programs that worked are "First Choice", "Blakbook", an older DOS version of "
Quicken" and a fourth one that I can not remember). Now after running for over a year ALL four of the programs cease to respond -- the screen just goes black for a couple of seconds and comes back to the desktop on which he has icons for the 4 programs (a
long with his other program icons). Apparently, nothing has changed on the NTFS system whatsoever (at least he can not remember any recent changes, additions, or deletions).
>
> I wonder if any of the "experts" who have posted under this question might have any experience or suggestions about the above situation. I chose this "thread" because of the LARGE number of posts (must have attracted a lot of knowledgeable persons).
>
> Thanks for reading. Any help or clue will be greatly appreciated. I really don't care if it is "real" DOS or an "emulator" -- I am just looking for a solution. Something in the system "very basic" must have been changed to cause ALL the programs to ju
st stop working.
>
<old comments snipped>

You say nothing has changed on the system in over a year. Does that mean
that no hotfixes were applied? If that's true I would suggest that that
be done immediately. MS has provided many fixes for security problems.
I'm not sure when Service Pack 1 came out but your friend should get
that also if it isn't already applied. If not he will have more problems
that just his DOS programs not loading.

If the fixes and SP1 have been loaded did any coincide with losing the
ability to open these DOS programs?

gls858

[Chuck]

For whatever it's worth--
I've run across this problem on a few dos programs, and chased it down to
combinations of video drivers and, of all things, Direct X. It seems that
some direct X settings can cause the video card & driver to go into
never-never land during a resolution change. (This was happening with
various versions of the ATI drivers for the 9200 video chip.)
Total uninstall & reinstall of the video drivers, using the ATI uninstall
utility, and following the instructions for it's use, coupled with trial &
error on the video settings in Direct X was the eventual cure. Other
possible problem areas causing a black screen are also possible. One of the
first things to do is to see if a before and after comparison can be done in
terms of changes to the system. For giggles, I'd see what happens in safe
mode.


"Del" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I read ALL of the postings under this subject but did not find what
I am looking for. Maybe I am in the wrong category (like the wrong number
in a telephone menu). It did seem like there were at least a few persons in
the LONG list of "submitters" that had a great deal of knowledge (although
it looks like the interest has run out).
>
> Here is the problem. I have a friend that has used 4 of his "favorite"
DOS programs in his newer Windows XP machine for over a year -- never any
problem with any of them (the programs that worked are "First Choice",
"Blakbook", an older DOS version of "Quicken" and a fourth one that I can
not remember). Now after running for over a year ALL four of the programs
cease to respond -- the screen just goes black for a couple of seconds and
comes back to the desktop on which he has icons for the 4 programs (along
with his other program icons). Apparently, nothing has changed on the NTFS
system whatsoever (at least he can not remember any recent changes,
additions, or deletions).
>
> I wonder if any of the "experts" who have posted under this question might
have any experience or suggestions about the above situation. I chose this
"thread" because of the LARGE number of posts (must have attracted a lot of
knowledgeable persons).
>
> Thanks for reading. Any help or clue will be greatly appreciated. I
really don't care if it is "real" DOS or an "emulator" -- I am just looking
for a solution. Something in the system "very basic" must have been changed
to cause ALL the programs to just stop working.
>
> =================================================
>
> "Pop" wrote:
>
> > Sorry byte-breath, but that is incorrect and also not right,
> > besides being erroneous.
> > See inline:
> >
> > "Mike" > had nothing useful to
> > say and said it in message
> > . ..
> > > For the purposes of somebody asking if their old DOS based
> > 'Command and
> > > Conquer' will load and run in XP, the answer 'no
> > == If you had actual experience, you would already know
> > that the answer is "probably, but it does depend on a few
> > things" blah...
> >
> > it won't because
> > == Oh YES, it certainly will in a LOT of instances! MANY
> > will function just fine.
> >
> > there is
> > > essentially no DOS in XP' is a good answer..
> > == It's a meaningless answer and does not respond to the
> > spirit of the question asked, which is "will my software
> > work?". Way too many narcissists and ego-centrics wish more
> > to show their so called intelligence as opposed to actually
> > doing good for the poster. You appear to be well entrenched
> > in that group and even have a closed mind to boot.
> > == Try the "test" I suggested and counter that; try using
> > some verifiable facts.
> >
> > there is little point in
> > > explaining the difference between DOS emulation and the
> > various versions of
> > > DOS that were available to a person that wants to know why
> > some of the old
> > > games do not appear to work..
> > == Correct, UNLESS it is properly couched in understandable
> > newbie-ese and meant to actually help as opposed to showing
> > off one's ego, AND if it seems relevant to the poster's well
> > being. Knowing how selfish and prideful you are is not
> > relevance.
> >
> > any explanation is just an attempt at being
> > > verbose,
> > == One does not "attempt" to be verbose; he either is or he
> > isn't.
> >
> > and is essentially splitting hairs..
> > == Or, in other words, egocentric. Not useful.
> >
> > It would be like being asked
> > > why a 'leaded gas pump nozzle' doesn't fit into the
> > receptacle fitted to
> > > 'lead free' vehicles, and replying with the whole
> > environmental and
> > > engineering issues involved in the change.. one of the
> > people would probably
> > > die before the explanation was finished, or at the very
> > least would wish
> > > it..
> > == No, that is an incorrect analogy and not fitting. It
> > suggests a one-way street; you can fit the nozzle one way,
> > but not vice-versa. That is not analogous.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Pop" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I don't mean to be as offensive as this probably sounds,
> > and
> > > > it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but ... for
> > those of
> > > > you who love the confusing fact that there is no DOS in
> > XP,
> > > > go open up XP and search Help for DOS, will you?
> > > >
> > > > Help and Support just now reports no less than 118 (ONE
> > > > HUNDRED EIGHTEEN!) hits for DOS, WHILE some feel the
> > > > constant necessity to tell people there is no DOS in XP.
> > > > There seems to be everything there from autoexec to zip.
> > > > So, when you stick all that useless no-DOS facts in
> > front of
> > > > a newbie and the fact means nothing to him/her, what do
> > you
> > > > think it makes YOU look like? STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS!!
> > > > A newbie that never saw DOS3 or 6 or 9 doesn't
> > distinguish
> > > > much between these things. GIVE THEM A BREAK, WILL YOU?
> > > >
> > > > You would better serve the community at large
> > -quit-
> > > > showing off the "facts" you know in instances where it
> > is N
> > > > OT relevant to the question that was put up. I get so
> > sick
> > > > of that little narcissism cropping up all the time! I
> > use
> > > > DOS ALL THE TIME on my XP Pro and Home machines, and
> > it's
> > > > the DOS that came with the OS!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > If you've gotta show off, why not go to someplace where
> > your
> > > > information will be appreciated and not actually be an
> > > > attempt to confuse people with facts? Usually
> > irrelevant
> > > > facts, at that.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, believe it or not,
> > > >
> > > > Pop
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > What kind of animals kills its own?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

[Del]

Thanks for you quick response. I will relay your thoughts to my friend and go from there.

"gls858" wrote:

> <old comments snipped>
>
> You say nothing has changed on the system in over a year. Does that mean
> that no hotfixes were applied? If that's true I would suggest that that
> be done immediately. MS has provided many fixes for security problems.
> I'm not sure when Service Pack 1 came out but your friend should get
> that also if it isn't already applied. If not he will have more problems
> that just his DOS programs not loading.
>
> If the fixes and SP1 have been loaded did any coincide with losing the
> ability to open these DOS programs?
>
> gls858
>
>

[Del]

Chuck

Thanks for your thoughts. I will relay them to my friend. Of course, "something" had to have happened to get things "off the track". This person does not "notice details" very much, so it is hard to get much more than a "huh!" from him. If your suggest
ions work I will come back here to report on the results.

Del
======================

"Chuck" wrote:

> For whatever it's worth--
> I've run across this problem on a few dos programs, and chased it down to
> combinations of video drivers and, of all things, Direct X. It seems that
> some direct X settings can cause the video card & driver to go into
> never-never land during a resolution change. (This was happening with
> various versions of the ATI drivers for the 9200 video chip.)
> Total uninstall & reinstall of the video drivers, using the ATI uninstall
> utility, and following the instructions for it's use, coupled with trial &
> error on the video settings in Direct X was the eventual cure. Other
> possible problem areas causing a black screen are also possible. One of the
> first things to do is to see if a before and after comparison can be done in
> terms of changes to the system. For giggles, I'd see what happens in safe
> mode.
>
>
> "Del" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, I read ALL of the postings under this subject but did not find what
> I am looking for. etc., etc., ......
remainder removed to keep it short.