Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Can I get to DOS?? |
|
Answer» Helpmeh wrote "CMD is not emulated dos...DosBox is emulated Dos. MS-DOS is real Dos...CMD is not DOS. We don't define anything by listing what it is not. "CMD is not emulated Dos" It makes no difference to the user if the command is from "Real Dos" or the XP Windows Dos like commands. The distinction is not needed and does not help the user.aside from them wondering why they can use set /a, for switches, and so forth under Windows 3.1, DOS 6.2, Windows 95,98,98SE, and ME, but it works alright under NT/XP/Vista. has nothing to do with them being different since as you say they are all DOS. Except they aren't. DOS is an Operating System. CMD.EXE is not an operating system. if a user is adept enough to USE the command prompt then I'm not sure what they WON'T gain by knowing the difference. Also, any command can depend on DOS version and revision to work properly. just try set /a in DOS 6. Works in CMD, but not in command. THAT is the difference. the USER will be using commands. obviously it's best to know which commands will work and which won't work. by understanding the differences between pure DOS and the NT command interpreter, one saves themselves troubleshooting to figure out, for example, why there is no /L switch in DOS 6; or why they can, or shouldn't, use certain commands, such as subst and join. ignoring these differences, as you appear to profess does not gain the user anything but further confusion, a state you allege occurs when we state that pure DOS and the command interpreter are different. a Fact which nobody can refute. Well put BC and good on you... But if we're dealing with a BIOS password than all BET's are off. First wayward laptop of the Month Award goes to the OP... BC, Thanks BC for taking time to explain the difference between a Disk Operating System and a Command Interpreter. However, I'm still confused; I thought MS DOS had a command Interpreter called command.com? _______________________________________ _______ The following is a related problem for me: Can we return to windows from cmd.exe with an exit command? Can we return to windows from command.com with an exit command? p.s I understand command.com is LOADED on XP to help run old MS DOS programs? C:\WINDOWS\system32\command.com Quote from: billrich on May 02, 2009, 08:40:15 PM Can we return to windows from cmd.exe with an exit command? 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes but it's not as good as MS-DOS, or a DOS EMU... 4. Or just command.com Quote from: billrich on May 02, 2009, 08:40:15 PM BC, Sigh. MS-DOS has a command interpreter. Command.com. command.com is the MS-DOS Command interpreter cmd.exe s the Windows NT Command interpreter. Guess what! Linux has a Command interpreter too! So I guess it doesn't matter wether the user is using command.com, cmd.exe, or a linux terminal. why would they need to know? Oh wait- they would! commands are different! Hmm, sounds similar. While cmd tries to remain compatible with the QUIRKS of command.com it is still a 32-bit program. It adds new things that DOS 6 and other implementations of command.com simply cannot handle. Another important distinction is the replacement of deltree with rmdir /s, as well as the ability to use the asterisk to change directories without typing out the full folder name. This doesn't work in Pure DOS. Quote The following is a related problem for me: we're not talking about command.com and cmd.exe both running on an XP system. command.com on an NT/XP system is actually a stub loader for cmd.exe that disables certain extensions such as the use of long filenames. Either way, I was referring to the pure command.com as found on windows ME and prior systems. additionally, one might add that "exit" will ALWAYS return you to windows from a command prompt- exit in command.com will not return to windows if windows isn't running. (this distinction obviously created because cmd.exe cannot run at all without a 32-bit windows subsystem running, as created by windows during boot. MS-DOS is a operating system. is HAS a command interpreter called command.com. that is completely irrelevant since the original PROPOSITION was that the fact that certain features don't work in pure DOS was not worth mentioning. They are. the changes introduced in the NT command interpreter are vast and a LOT of batch files use the new functionality. trying to run these batch files in DOS 6, windows 95, windows 98, etc will fail because such extensions do not exist in those versions. going back now to differences on a single OS, windows XP, command.com cannot change to directory names with spaces that are also longer then 8 characters. Since this can easily affect any batch file dealing with files or folders, I don't see such a difference as moot or irelevant. Especially since a 5 page thread exists here because of this very issue- the fact that the OP was running command.com as opposed to cmd.exe.And Billrich, sorry for my correction |
|