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 ; T> As indicated, you can access SOME hardware under the two T> DOS emulators (COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE). Neither of those are emulators, DOS or otherwise. They are command interpreters. The former is a 16-bit DOS program, and the latter is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

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

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

    T> As indicated, you can access SOME hardware under the two
    T> DOS emulators (COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE).

    Neither of those are emulators, DOS or otherwise. They are command
    interpreters. The former is a 16-bit DOS program, and the latter is
    an ordinary Win32 program, that has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with
    DOS. The _single_ "DOS emulator" is NTVDM, the Windows NT Virtual DOS
    Machine.

    http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoy...-cli-is-not-a-
    dos-prompt.html>


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

    J de Boyne Pollard writes:
    > T> As indicated, you can access SOME hardware under the two
    > T> DOS emulators (COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE).
    >
    > Neither of those are emulators, DOS or otherwise. They are command
    > interpreters. The former is a 16-bit DOS program, and the latter is
    > an ordinary Win32 program, that has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with
    > DOS. The _single_ "DOS emulator" is NTVDM, the Windows NT Virtual DOS
    > Machine.
    >
    > http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoy...-cli-is-not-a-
    > dos-prompt.html>


    You seem to be confusing the filename "COMMAND", with the name
    of the program, "MS-DOS". Only Microsoft have the right to dictate
    what the name of their program is, and if they say that the CLI
    is called "MS-DOS", and that the commands you type into it
    are called "MS-DOS commands", then the CLI is called "MS-DOS",
    and the commands you type into it are called "MS-DOS commands"
    whether you like it or not. And they do. Sure, they use the same
    name for the CLI that's part of the OS as they do for the whole
    OS, which is a poor choice, but it's a choice that they had the
    right to make, as it's their product, not yours.

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

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

    T> As indicated, you can access SOME hardware under the two
    T> DOS emulators (COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE). [...]

    JdeBP> Neither of those are emulators, DOS or otherwise. They are
    JdeBP> command interpreters. The former is a 16-bit DOS program,
    JdeBP> and the latter is an ordinary Win32 program, that has _nothing
    JdeBP> whatsoever_ to do with DOS. The _single_ "DOS emulator"
    JdeBP> is NTVDM, the Windows NT Virtual DOS Machine.
    JdeBP>
    JdeBP> http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoy.../FGA/a-cli-is-
    not-a-dos-prompt.html>

    PC> You seem to be confusing the filename "COMMAND", with the name
    PC> of the program, "MS-DOS". [...] the CLI is called "MS-DOS" [...]

    That command interpreter is not, and never has been, named "MS-DOS".
    MS-DOS is the name of an operating system. It's even a registered
    trademark. Microsoft calls command interpreters "command
    interpreters", for which there is copious evidence going back for
    decades, including the famous "bad or missing command interpreter"
    message. Microsoft refers to COMMAND as "the MS-DOS command
    interpreter, COMMAND.COM". (See Microsoft KnowledgeBase article
    #120822, for example.) But this merely means that it is the command
    interpreter that ships with MS-DOS, not that it is named "MS-DOS".
    The part at the end, "COMMAND.COM", is the name. And by the same
    convention that has us talking about "MODE" and "ASSIGN" instead of
    "MODE.COM" and "ASSIGN.COM", the ".COM" is omittable. The only
    confusion here is yours.


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

    J de Boyne Pollard writes:
    > T> As indicated, you can access SOME hardware under the two
    > T> DOS emulators (COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE). [...]
    >
    > JdeBP> Neither of those are emulators, DOS or otherwise. They are
    > JdeBP> command interpreters. The former is a 16-bit DOS program,
    > JdeBP> and the latter is an ordinary Win32 program, that has _nothing
    > JdeBP> whatsoever_ to do with DOS. The _single_ "DOS emulator"
    > JdeBP> is NTVDM, the Windows NT Virtual DOS Machine.
    > JdeBP>
    > JdeBP> http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoy.../FGA/a-cli-is-
    > not-a-dos-prompt.html>
    >
    > PC> You seem to be confusing the filename "COMMAND", with the name
    > PC> of the program, "MS-DOS". [...] the CLI is called "MS-DOS" [...]
    >
    > That command interpreter is not, and never has been, named "MS-DOS".
    > MS-DOS is the name of an operating system. It's even a registered
    > trademark. Microsoft calls command interpreters "command
    > interpreters", for which there is copious evidence going back for
    > decades, including the famous "bad or missing command interpreter"
    > message.


    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'?

    > Microsoft refers to COMMAND as "the MS-DOS command
    > interpreter, COMMAND.COM". (See Microsoft KnowledgeBase article
    > #120822, for example.)


    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"

    "For more information about changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands"

    "Native MS-DOS Commands and the Space Character"

    "Changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands. MS-DOS commands"

    ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS commands,""

    "MS-DOS commands that are no longer available in the Windows Server 2003"

    "the following MS-DOS commands: backup, date, restore, and time."

    "Specifies the alternative device you want to use to type MS-DOS commands."

    "Entering MS-DOS Commands"

    "You type MS-DOS commands using a command prompt window"

    "Exit Codes or Errorlevels Set by MS-DOS Commands"

    "intrinsic MS-DOS commands, such as Copy, Dir,"

    "You can tailor MS-DOS to your specific needs by creating powerful commands made up of other MS-DOS commands"

    > The only
    > confusion here is yours.


    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.

    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?

    On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote:

    > ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS
    > commands,""


    CONFIG.SYS is processed before the command processor loads. It is in fact
    processed by the OS loader or the OS itself.

    --
    T.E.D. (tdavis@umr.edu)


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

    Ted Davis wrote:
    > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote:
    >
    >> ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS
    >> commands,""

    >
    > CONFIG.SYS is processed before the command processor loads. It is in fact
    > processed by the OS loader or the OS itself.
    >


    Yes, and in the latest versions of DOS (Win95/DOS 7 or higher, I
    believe) MSDOS.SYS is also a text file with configuration commands.

    -hpa

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

    Ted Davis writes:
    > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:04:02 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote:
    >
    > > ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS
    > > commands,""

    >
    > CONFIG.SYS is processed before the command processor loads. It is in fact
    > processed by the OS loader or the OS itself.


    OK, that one slipped through. In that case use the 11th hit
    from google as the 10th example, as there really is no shortage
    of them.

    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 wrote:
    > 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.


    BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .
    That hardly discredits JD statements.

    Again, and slowly ... MS-DOS *was* the operating system.
    Comand.com was one of the programs supplied as part of the
    MS-DOS operating system. JUst one of them. It was simply
    the 'human interface' which made MSDOS sytem calls on
    behalf of the user.

    C:> was the Dos command prompt furnished by command.com.
    It accepted input from the user and used the MSDOS OS to
    do common functions. here's a reasonable history of the MSDOS
    *operating system* which included command.com.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS




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

    You guys will need nanotechnology to split those hairs any finer.

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

    On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, "lee h" wrote:
    > Phil Carmody wrote:
    > > 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.

    >
    > BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .
    > That hardly discredits JD statements.
    >
    > Again, and slowly ... MS-DOS *was* the operating system.
    > Comand.com was one of the programs supplied as part of the
    > MS-DOS operating system. JUst one of them. It was simply
    > the 'human interface' which made MSDOS sytem calls on
    > behalf of the user.


    Correct. And this thread is proof of asmers' tendency to get pedantic
    about any topic... no matter how minor.

    It has lately been quite slow in here. I can almost hear a pin drop.
    See how noizy it used to be:

    http://netscan.research.microsoft.co...g=alt.lang.asm

    Nathan.


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

    Phil Carmody writes:
    > J de Boyne Pollard writes:
    >>
    >> That command interpreter is not, and never has been, named "MS-DOS".
    >> MS-DOS is the name of an operating system. It's even a registered
    >> trademark. Microsoft calls command interpreters "command
    >> interpreters", for which there is copious evidence going back for
    >> decades, including the famous "bad or missing command interpreter"
    >> message.

    >
    > 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'?


    I'm sure that stupid. Do you have any reasonable evidence to support
    your claim that MS has ever called the CLI, as opposed to the rest of
    MS-DOS, MS-DOS?
    >
    > 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"
    >
    > "Native MS-DOS Commands and the Space Character"
    >
    > "Changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands. MS-DOS commands"
    >
    > ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS commands,""
    >
    > "MS-DOS commands that are no longer available in the Windows Server 2003"
    >
    > "the following MS-DOS commands: backup, date, restore, and time."
    >
    > "Specifies the alternative device you want to use to type MS-DOS commands."
    >
    > "Entering MS-DOS Commands"
    >
    > "You type MS-DOS commands using a command prompt window"
    >
    > "Exit Codes or Errorlevels Set by MS-DOS Commands"
    >
    > "intrinsic MS-DOS commands, such as Copy, Dir,"
    >
    > "You can tailor MS-DOS to your specific needs by creating powerful commands made up of other MS-DOS commands"


    You've got a whole list here of 'evidence' consisting of
    demonstrating that the command line interpreter is capable of
    executing programs that aren't part of the command line interpreter.
    Ummm, yeah. That's sort of the point of a command line interpreter.
    Your examples could be used to "show" that every executable program in
    a Linux installation is part of bash.

    >
    >> The only
    >> confusion here is yours.

    >
    > 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.


    Well, no. So far, you seem to have demonstrated that you don't know
    the difference between a CLI and the programs it executes.

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

    On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:52:02 +0100, Evenbit wrote:

    > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, "lee h" wrote:
    >> Phil Carmody wrote:
    >> > 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.

    >>
    >> BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .
    >> That hardly discredits JD statements.
    >>
    >> Again, and slowly ... MS-DOS *was* the operating system.
    >> Comand.com was one of the programs supplied as part of the
    >> MS-DOS operating system. JUst one of them. It was simply
    >> the 'human interface' which made MSDOS sytem calls on
    >> behalf of the user.

    >
    > Correct. And this thread is proof of asmers' tendency to get pedantic
    > about any topic... no matter how minor.
    >
    > It has lately been quite slow in here. I can almost hear a pin drop.


    Me too!

    I think the main troll must be having all his heads for a haircut.

    > Nathan.
    >



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

    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. One of the MS-DOS commands is COMMAND the standard
    command interpreter which provides a CLI for running MS-DOS commands. How
    the fun part there are other command interpreters available for MS-DOS for
    example MKS supplied a Korn shell implementation that ran under MS-DOS and
    could be used to run those same MS-DOS commands. There are even GUIs that
    can be used to run MS-DOS commands (and they are not all called Windows).

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

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

    On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:12:24 -0500, lee h wrote:
    >Phil Carmody wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .
    >That hardly discredits JD statements.
    >
    >Again, and slowly ... MS-DOS *was* the operating system.
    >Comand.com was one of the programs supplied as part of the
    >MS-DOS operating system. JUst one of them. It was simply
    >the 'human interface' which made MSDOS sytem calls on
    >behalf of the user.


    And could be replaced by another program with similar funtionality.
    My MSDOS system doesn't use COMMAND.COM at all - it uses 4DOS.COM
    instead.

    --
    Cheers,
    Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
    (Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

    The future was never like this!

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

    "lee h" writes:

    > Phil Carmody wrote:
    > > 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.

    >
    > BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .


    No I didn't. Is you a bit fick or summit?

    > That hardly discredits JD statements.


    He claimed that MS do not refer to the CLI as DOS.
    I showed MS refering to the CLI as DOS.

    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.

    [SNIP - not even read, first 2 sentences were devoid of
    intelligence, not expecting it to get any less stupid.]

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

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

    Joe Pfeiffer writes:
    > Phil Carmody writes:
    > > J de Boyne Pollard writes:
    > >>
    > >> That command interpreter is not, and never has been, named "MS-DOS".
    > >> MS-DOS is the name of an operating system. It's even a registered
    > >> trademark. Microsoft calls command interpreters "command
    > >> interpreters", for which there is copious evidence going back for
    > >> decades, including the famous "bad or missing command interpreter"
    > >> message.

    > >
    > > 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'?

    >
    > I'm sure that stupid. Do you have any reasonable evidence to support
    > your claim that MS has ever called the CLI, as opposed to the rest of
    > MS-DOS, MS-DOS?


    Let's look:

    > > 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"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "For more information about changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "Native MS-DOS Commands and the Space Character"



    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "Changes to the functionality of MS-DOS commands. MS-DOS commands"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > ""Your CONFIG.SYS file contains commands that are not valid MS-DOS commands,""


    OK, that one isn't.

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


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "the following MS-DOS commands: backup, date, restore, and time."


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "Specifies the alternative device you want to use to type MS-DOS commands."


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "Entering MS-DOS Commands"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "You type MS-DOS commands using a command prompt window"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "Exit Codes or Errorlevels Set by MS-DOS Commands"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "intrinsic MS-DOS commands, such as Copy, Dir,"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.

    > > "You can tailor MS-DOS to your specific needs by creating powerful commands made up of other MS-DOS commands"


    That's MS refering to the commands used in the CLI as MS-DOS
    commands. Those aren't OS syscalls being talked about, that's
    the CLI they're calling MS-DOS.


    > You've got a whole list here of 'evidence' consisting of
    > demonstrating that the command line interpreter is capable of
    > executing programs that aren't part of the command line interpreter.


    It's nothing of the sort. That's evidence that MS refer to
    the CLI as "MS-DOS".

    > Ummm, yeah. That's sort of the point of a command line interpreter.
    > Your examples could be used to "show" that every executable program in
    > a Linux installation is part of bash.


    Utter crap. If I posted references to Slackware documentation
    that refered to the bash prompt as the "linux prompt", then I'd
    validly claim to have evidence that Slackware refers to the
    command line as linux. However, there is not the case, so I make
    no claim. However, MS _demonstrably_ refer to the command.com
    and cmd.exe prompt as the "MS-DOS prompt". Therefore my claim
    that the command.com and cmd.exe prompt is called the "MS-DOS
    prompt" is entirely supportable and other claims to the contrary
    are false. MS give it its name(s). If they call it that, that's
    (one of) its name(s).

    > >> The only
    > >> confusion here is yours.

    > >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Well, no. So far, you seem to have demonstrated that you don't know
    > the difference between a CLI and the programs it executes.


    Au contraire. I've demonstrated that you've got the same pitifully
    poor comprehension skills as the rest of the senile trolls that
    J Payne de la Bollocks has dragged into alt.lang.asm.

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

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

    Evenbit writes:
    > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, "lee h" wrote:
    > > Phil Carmody wrote:
    > > > 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.

    > >
    > > BS. you posted a dozen instances of MS-Dos Commands . . .
    > > That hardly discredits JD statements.
    > >
    > > Again, and slowly ... MS-DOS *was* the operating system.
    > > Comand.com was one of the programs supplied as part of the
    > > MS-DOS operating system. JUst one of them. It was simply
    > > the 'human interface' which made MSDOS sytem calls on
    > > behalf of the user.

    >
    > Correct. And this thread is proof of asmers' tendency to get pedantic
    > about any topic... no matter how minor.


    Oh, so that's what else he posted? OK, that's correct, but it's
    only correct in the sense that "look, this sheep is white" is
    correct. In no way does it address the truth or falsity of the
    assertion that black sheep (CLIs called "MS-DOS") exist which
    was the point I was addressing. So irrelevent.

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

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

    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".

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

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

    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.
    What makes them MS-DOS programs is that they use the MS-DOS system call
    interface not that they are launched by the MS-DOS default command
    interpreter.

    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 ?

    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.

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

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

    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?

    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast