Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP? - Microsoft Windows ; Renaissance writes: > Phil Carmody ha scritto: > >> Yes they are all MS-DOS commands ie. commands that run under the > >> operating system MS-DOS. > > When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt". > > "SHELL= " is a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

  1. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Renaissance writes:
    > Phil Carmody ha scritto:
    > >> Yes they are all MS-DOS commands ie. commands that run under the
    > >> operating system MS-DOS.

    > > When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt".

    >
    > "SHELL=" is a directive in the config.sys
    > that allow the use of an alternative CLI, don't you know?


    And?

    If you use that to invoke your home-grown CLI that uses a
    zsh-like syntax, I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't call them
    "MS-DOS commands". However, just look at the things that it
    does call "MS-DOS commands" - as only that will satisfy the
    question of whether Microsoft call their CLI "MS-DOS" and
    "the MS-DOS prompt" and the commands typed into their CLI
    "MS-DOS commands". And satisfy it in the positive.

    What did alt.lang.asm do to deserve this invasion of thick?

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  2. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Phil Carmody ha scritto:

    >>> When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt".


    >> "SHELL=" is a directive in the config.sys
    >> that allow the use of an alternative CLI, don't you know?


    > And?


    > If you use that to invoke your home-grown CLI that uses a
    > zsh-like syntax, I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't call them
    > "MS-DOS commands".


    It's not interesting wether or not microsoft call the CLI/
    dos prompt "MS_DOS": the facts are others, and it's not a
    merely matter of definitions (your unique argumentation...).
    IMHO you're just a bit confused: the parameters sintax of an
    external command mainly depends on the command itself (another
    thing is the sintax of shell's internal commands), the script
    language, special functions, metacharacters, etc. of the specific
    shell is another matter. BTW, the zsh MUST conform to the api
    specifications of the DOS kernel to request the "load and execute"
    primitive in order to call an external command/executable and
    to do parameter passing.
    Are you really sure, for example, that the external "MODE" command,
    called with the adequate parameters for setting a serial port, is
    different if called using command.com and zsh.exe, and the "MODE"
    command is NOT a DOS command in the second case?

    bye G.L.

    --
    Renaissance, aka Gian Luca Sole
    "E' assolutamente evidente che l'arte del cinema si ispira
    alla vita, mentre la vita si ispira alla TV" - Woody Allen

  3. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Phil Carmody wrote:
    > He claimed that MS do not refer to the CLI as DOS.
    > I showed MS refering to the CLI as DOS.


    you most certainly did not show anything of the kind.

    >
    > If you don't consider that a cut-and-dried disproof
    > of his absurd claim, then you're as full of crap as
    > he is on this matter.


    It seems that your disapproval is a recognition of
    intelligence. I'll accept your kudoes, in that case.
    Even though you show less than average skill in
    trolling, I'll follow the normal advice and will not
    feed you further. I'll not engage in a battle of wits
    against the unarmed.



  4. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
    > On 02 Nov 2007 13:45:13 +0200
    > Phil Carmody wrote:
    >
    > > Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
    > > > On 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200
    > > > Phil Carmody wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Same principle as above, it's called it various things, and
    > > > > no quantity of white sheep that you show me will ever persuade
    > > > > me that there are no black sheep.
    > > > >
    > > > > So are you also so stupid that you'd be prepared to claiming that
    > > > > none of these quotes will be found at microsoft.com, then?
    > > > >
    > > > > "For a list of MS-DOS commands, type fasthelp at the command prompt"
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Yes they are all MS-DOS commands ie. commands that run under the
    > > > operating system MS-DOS.

    > >
    > > When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt".

    >
    > *One* way of running them is by typing the name into the interface
    > provided by the command prompt - it is *not* the only way of running them.


    How else would you invoke 'dir'? Could you launch the dir that's
    part of the MS-DOS (or MS Windows) distribution from within your
    MKS Korn shell? Having any luck with 'dir.com' or 'dir.exe'?

    > What makes them MS-DOS programs


    Programs, eh? Do you think 'dir' is a 'program'? If so, please
    evolve a brain; if not, then try to avoid changing the topic.

    > is that they use the MS-DOS system call
    > interface not that they are launched by the MS-DOS default command
    > interpreter.


    That much is true. Have you already forgotten that all of the
    quotes I included had the string "MS-DOS commands" in them,
    and not "MS-DOS programs"? Won't your MediCare cover pills to
    aid with your memory loss?

    > A simple question for you - if I launch one of these programs
    > from the MKS Korn shell does it become a Korn shell command or is it still
    > an MS-DOS command ? how about if I launch it from Windows with a PIF file ?
    > or from 4DOS ? or from Desqview ?


    Still on "programs", eh? And still wondering what some individual
    who is not the author or vendor of the OS or the CLI thinks it
    should be called? Erm, why? Is addressing the actual point raised
    too much strain for you?

    > The command interpreter in COMMAND.COM is a component of MS-DOS
    > that provides the default CLI for MS-DOS, it is *not* MS-DOS.


    It is not the whole of MS-DOS, but it is _called_ MS-DOS by the
    people who wrote the software. As I wrote way upthread the fact
    that they've got an ambiguous nomenclature is a bit crap and
    confusing, but what's done is done.

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  5. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Renaissance writes:
    > Phil Carmody ha scritto:
    >
    > >>> When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt".

    >
    > >> "SHELL=" is a directive in the config.sys
    > >> that allow the use of an alternative CLI, don't you know?

    >
    > > And?

    >
    > > If you use that to invoke your home-grown CLI that uses a zsh-like
    > > syntax, I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't call them "MS-DOS
    > > commands".

    >
    > It's not interesting wether or not microsoft call the CLI/
    > dos prompt "MS_DOS"


    Now I see why you appear to be missing the point. Because
    you're completely missing the point. The above is *precisely*
    the issue in JBdeP's webpage that I was raising.

    Read upthread. With brain turned to "comprehend" this time.

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  6. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    I'm going to give Bochs and FreeDos a shot. I got Bochs installed and
    I am trying to figure out how to configure it to run FreeDos.

    thanks


  7. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    "lee h" writes:
    > Phil Carmody wrote:
    > > He claimed that MS do not refer to the CLI as DOS.
    > > I showed MS refering to the CLI as DOS.

    >
    > you most certainly did not show anything of the kind.


    Well, they were undeniably MS quotes, undeniably refering
    to their CLI, and undeniably calling it "MS-DOS".
    Quite what else you think is required to satisfy you that
    they were MS refering to the CLI as DOS, I daren't guess,
    but guess it probably requires ketamine injections to the
    brain stem, and I just don't want to follow you down that
    route.

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  8. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Phil Carmody ha scritto:

    > Now I see why you appear to be missing the point. Because
    > you're completely missing the point. The above is *precisely*
    > the issue in JBdeP's webpage that I was raising.
    > Read upthread. With brain turned to "comprehend" this time.


    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    ================================================== ================

    --
    Renaissance, aka Gian Luca Sole
    "E' assolutamente evidente che l'arte del cinema si ispira
    alla vita, mentre la vita si ispira alla TV" - Woody Allen

  9. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    On Nov 2, 1:56 pm, Phil Carmody
    wrote:
    >
    > > *One* way of running them is by typing the name into the interface
    > > provided by the command prompt - it is *not* the only way of running them.

    >
    > How else would you invoke 'dir'? Could you launch the dir that's
    > part of the MS-DOS (or MS Windows) distribution from within your
    > MKS Korn shell? Having any luck with 'dir.com' or 'dir.exe'?
    >
    > > What makes them MS-DOS programs

    >
    > Programs, eh? Do you think 'dir' is a 'program'? If so, please
    > evolve a brain; if not, then try to avoid changing the topic.
    >
    > > is that they use the MS-DOS system call
    > > interface not that they are launched by the MS-DOS default command
    > > interpreter.

    >
    > That much is true. Have you already forgotten that all of the
    > quotes I included had the string "MS-DOS commands" in them,
    > and not "MS-DOS programs"? Won't your MediCare cover pills to
    > aid with your memory loss?
    >
    > > A simple question for you - if I launch one of these programs
    > > from the MKS Korn shell does it become a Korn shell command or is it still
    > > an MS-DOS command ? how about if I launch it from Windows with a PIF file ?
    > > or from 4DOS ? or from Desqview ?

    >
    > Still on "programs", eh? And still wondering what some individual
    > who is not the author or vendor of the OS or the CLI thinks it
    > should be called? Erm, why? Is addressing the actual point raised
    > too much strain for you?
    >


    True. There are several commands built into COMMAND.COM (CMD.EXE)
    that are not provided elsewhere.

    Nathan.


  10. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    On Nov 2, 12:07 pm, Phil Carmody
    wrote:
    > Renaissance writes:
    > > Phil Carmody ha scritto:
    > > >> Yes they are all MS-DOS commands ie. commands that run under the
    > > >> operating system MS-DOS.
    > > > When typed at the "MS-DOS prompt".

    >
    > > "SHELL=" is a directive in the config.sys
    > > that allow the use of an alternative CLI, don't you know?

    >
    > And?
    >
    > If you use that to invoke your home-grown CLI that uses a
    > zsh-like syntax, I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't call them
    > "MS-DOS commands". However, just look at the things that it
    > does call "MS-DOS commands" - as only that will satisfy the
    > question of whether Microsoft call their CLI "MS-DOS" and
    > "the MS-DOS prompt" and the commands typed into their CLI
    > "MS-DOS commands". And satisfy it in the positive.
    >
    > What did alt.lang.asm do to deserve this invasion of thick?
    >


    Dang! I am sure happy that you and I didn't grow up in the same
    neighborhood. I learned quite early to RUN LIKE HELL after throwing a
    rock into a hornet's nest -- *you* obviously just stood there and kept
    throwing.

    Nathan.

    Tomorrow's obit: Phat Phil (valiant defender of a.l.a) - stung to
    death by a virtual hive.


  11. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    On 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote in alt.lang.asm,
    comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.msdos.misc, alt.folklore.computers:

    [snip]
    >Are you really so stupid that you think evidence that Microsoft
    >has called its CLI a "command interpreter" can be used to disprove
    >my claim that Microsoft has called its CLI 'MS-DOS'?

    [snip]
    >So are you also so stupid that you'd be prepared to claiming that
    >none of these quotes will be found at microsoft.com, then?
    >
    >"For a list of MS-DOS commands, type fasthelp at the command prompt"
    >
    >"For more information about changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands"

    [snip]
    >"MS-DOS commands that are no longer available in the Windows Server 2003"

    [snip]

    This last point in particular is hilarious.

    So you demonstrated that Microsoft called its Command Line Interpreter
    COMMAND.COM "MS-DOS". This confusion in some quarters at MS is no reason
    to adopt their woolly thinking and outright wrong nomenclature.

    A Operating System is an Operating System, fixed and immutable what it
    can and can not do - e.g. MS-DOS cannot access memory beyond a certain
    size.

    A CLI on the other hand is nothing but an application; several of them
    can co-exist on the same system, they have different features, some are
    free, some are commercial. A large part of a CLI's job is to invoke
    other console programs (or indeed GUI programs), e.g. MODE.COM or
    DEFRAG.EXE, nothing of which has anything to do with what Operating
    System is involved or what it's called.

    If Microsoft confuses the two (and I suspect they did so intentionally
    for marketing reasons) it doesn't make it so.

    >Well, it's patently clear that one of us is full of crap, and
    >as I have just posted a dozen things which blow your utterly
    >fatuous argument out of the water, I don't think it's me.


    You might find a more open ear to your argument if you'd manage to make
    it with less scatology and more civility.

    PS: "CLI" can mean two things: "Command Line Interpreter", and the more
    general "Command Line Interface". We're discussing the first here.

    --
    Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"

  12. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    In article <87mytw637r.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
    Phil Carmody wrote:


    >What did alt.lang.asm do to deserve this invasion of thick?


    Look at the x-posting you are doing.

    /BAH

  13. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Evenbit writes:
    > On Nov 2, 12:07 pm, Phil Carmody
    > wrote:
    > > What did alt.lang.asm do to deserve this invasion of thick?
    > >

    >
    > Dang! I am sure happy that you and I didn't grow up in the same
    > neighborhood. I learned quite early to RUN LIKE HELL after throwing a
    > rock into a hornet's nest -- *you* obviously just stood there and kept
    > throwing.


    I dripped several bottles of 1,1,1-trichloroethane onto the
    nest before I started. Those hornets can only fly in a straight
    line now - straight down.

    > Nathan.
    >
    > Tomorrow's obit: Phat Phil (valiant defender of a.l.a) - stung to
    > death by a virtual hive.


    Stings? What stings? This lot are like a scene from /Shaun of the Dead/.

    I notice one accused me of trolling. This ain't trolling, this
    is trawling. Good job too, I suspect their ability to bite is
    hindered by their false teeth.

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  14. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Michael Bednarek writes:
    > On 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote in alt.lang.asm,
    > comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.msdos.misc, alt.folklore.computers:
    >
    > [snip]
    > >Are you really so stupid that you think evidence that Microsoft
    > >has called its CLI a "command interpreter" can be used to disprove
    > >my claim that Microsoft has called its CLI 'MS-DOS'?

    > [snip]
    > >So are you also so stupid that you'd be prepared to claiming that
    > >none of these quotes will be found at microsoft.com, then?
    > >
    > >"For a list of MS-DOS commands, type fasthelp at the command prompt"
    > >
    > >"For more information about changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands"

    > [snip]
    > >"MS-DOS commands that are no longer available in the Windows Server 2003"

    > [snip]
    >
    > This last point in particular is hilarious.
    >
    > So you demonstrated that Microsoft called its Command Line Interpreter
    > COMMAND.COM "MS-DOS". This confusion in some quarters at MS is no reason
    > to adopt their woolly thinking and outright wrong nomenclature.


    However, names are just names. Names aren't "wrong", they are
    merely "inappropriate" or "misleading", or simply "confusing".
    MS have created a context in which the three letters D, O, and S,
    in that order don't actually mean what they originally and should
    mean. But command.com and cmd.exe are their babies, and they've
    got as much right to stick a silly name on it as George Elliot
    had to publish under that name. Or so Sister Bernard and Sister
    Thomas at the local convent once told me (whilst listening to
    Alice Cooper). MS's name is clearly inappropriate, misleading,
    and confusing I've never said otherwise and in fact have
    stressed that a couple of times.

    I think you underestimate the depth and bredth of the confusion
    at MS in this regard - no part is immune from this tradition.
    It can be found in every part of their documentation, from user
    documentation to developer documentation. Restrict a web-search
    to *.microsoft.com, and you'll see such phrases everywhere.

    > A Operating System is an Operating System, fixed and immutable what it
    > can and can not do - e.g. MS-DOS cannot access memory beyond a certain
    > size.
    >
    > A CLI on the other hand is nothing but an application; several of them
    > can co-exist on the same system, they have different features, some are
    > free, some are commercial. A large part of a CLI's job is to invoke
    > other console programs (or indeed GUI programs), e.g. MODE.COM or
    > DEFRAG.EXE, nothing of which has anything to do with what Operating
    > System is involved or what it's called.


    Of these, I am perfectly aware. (Although some OSes found in
    the embedded arena are not immutable and can be patched on the
    fly.)

    > If Microsoft confuses the two (and I suspect they did so intentionally
    > for marketing reasons) it doesn't make it so.


    I completely agree with your view that it was intentional.
    But it's a product, with an abstract name, c.f. 'Bob', and
    nomenclature is a linguistic question, not a technical one -
    and, descriptivist that I am, usage trumps common sense. And
    there's certainly proof of usage by the bucketload. The "OS"
    in "MS-DOS prompt are not a /definition/, they are an /association/.
    The association is correct, as in the simple environment
    where either is found, they are both found together.

    Another example would be the program 'ftp', which is not a
    protocol, yet its name preserves the association between
    it and the protocol around which the program operates.

    > >Well, it's patently clear that one of us is full of crap, and
    > >as I have just posted a dozen things which blow your utterly
    > >fatuous argument out of the water, I don't think it's me.

    >
    > You might find a more open ear to your argument if you'd manage to make
    > it with less scatology and more civility.


    JdBP was the one who first started playing to the crowds.
    I just prefer a more Falstaffian delivery style, shall we say.

    > PS: "CLI" can mean two things: "Command Line Interpreter", and the more
    > general "Command Line Interface". We're discussing the first here.


    Well, from a MS-pile-all-things-together viewpoint, we're discussing
    both. MS do use the same nomenclature for the interface as they do
    for the two most common implementations of that interface.

    I'm curious in what group you read this thread. I think I
    can guess the source of many of the other posters, but you
    don't fit the same mould at all. (And hence I've been a tad
    more Prince Hal than Falstaff, as you may have noticed!)

    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

  15. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Phil Carmody ha scritto:

    > I notice one accused me of trolling.


    I apologize. But I'm not the only poster that was misunderstanding
    what you were saying about. Pheraps, from the beginning, you were
    not so clear, mh? And your aggressiveness has not been of aid
    ("stupid", "brain full of crap"...).

    bye G.L.

    --
    Renaissance, aka Gian Luca Sole
    "E' assolutamente evidente che l'arte del cinema si ispira
    alla vita, mentre la vita si ispira alla TV" - Woody Allen

  16. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    In article <87odebl9tk.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
    Phil Carmody wrote:
    >Michael Bednarek writes:
    >> On 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote in alt.lang.asm,
    >> comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.msdos.misc, alt.folklore.computers:
    >>
    >> [snip]
    >> >Are you really so stupid that you think evidence that Microsoft
    >> >has called its CLI a "command interpreter" can be used to disprove
    >> >my claim that Microsoft has called its CLI 'MS-DOS'?

    >> [snip]
    >> >So are you also so stupid that you'd be prepared to claiming that
    >> >none of these quotes will be found at microsoft.com, then?
    >> >
    >> >"For a list of MS-DOS commands, type fasthelp at the command prompt"
    >> >
    >> >"For more information about changes to the functionality of MS-DOS

    commands"
    >> [snip]
    >> >"MS-DOS commands that are no longer available in the Windows Server 2003"

    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> This last point in particular is hilarious.
    >>
    >> So you demonstrated that Microsoft called its Command Line Interpreter
    >> COMMAND.COM "MS-DOS". This confusion in some quarters at MS is no reason
    >> to adopt their woolly thinking and outright wrong nomenclature.

    >
    >However, names are just names. Names aren't "wrong", they are
    >merely "inappropriate" or "misleading", or simply "confusing".


    Oh, bull****. From the noun used, one can tell which code is
    running to provide the computing service. There is a huge
    difference if the monitor is decoding the command and providing
    the computing service and the monitor loading in a user mode
    program (app to you young things) which then decodes the command
    and provides the computing service.

    /BAH



  17. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    On 03 Nov 2007 15:47:51 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote in alt.lang.asm,
    comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.msdos.misc, alt.folklore.computers:

    [snip]
    >I'm curious in what group you read this thread. I think I
    >can guess the source of many of the other posters, but you
    >don't fit the same mould at all. (And hence I've been a tad
    >more Prince Hal than Falstaff, as you may have noticed!)


    comp.os.ms-windows.misc

    --
    Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"

  18. Re: Real Mode,16 bit Programming (Intel x86) on Windows XP?

    Michael Bednarek writes:
    > On 03 Nov 2007 15:47:51 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote in alt.lang.asm,
    > comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.msdos.misc, alt.folklore.computers:
    >
    > [snip]
    > >I'm curious in what group you read this thread. I think I
    > >can guess the source of many of the other posters, but you
    > >don't fit the same mould at all. (And hence I've been a tad
    > >more Prince Hal than Falstaff, as you may have noticed!)

    >
    > comp.os.ms-windows.misc


    Many thanks, Michael. I a long-term inmate of the madhouse that
    calls itself a.l.a., and one might say that I have a bit of
    a history of throwing rotten vegetables at many residents of
    one of the other newsgroups that JdBP added to the newsgroups
    line, now removed; and it was their style I recognised in other
    responses, not yours. (Which hopefully explains my comment
    about him playing to the crowd.)

    Fare ye well,
    Phil
    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
    -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2