Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Using DOS Today...? |
Answer» QUOTE from: BC_Programmer on July 29, 2008, 11:18:43 AMAnd I hate to drag this thread on any longer, but this confused me, "so While DOS was not a disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it FUNCTIONED the same Way". I'm not particularly sure what you mean there- all DOS needs to do to live up to the acronym is work with floppy disks (or hard disks, as the case may be). I don't see how the presence or lack of a setup.exe file can disqualify it from the term.... BC_programmer, let the guy have the last word, even if he's wrong. It seems that his personality needs it. Quote from: Dias de verano on July 29, 2008, 11:29:33 AM Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 29, 2008, 11:18:43 AMAnd I hate to drag this thread on any longer, but this confused me, "so While DOS was not a disk Operating System it was still called DOS because it functioned the same Way". I'm not particularly sure what you mean there- all DOS needs to do to live up to the acronym is work with floppy disks (or hard disks, as the case may be). I don't see how the presence or lack of a setup.exe file can disqualify it from the term.... OK. whatever he says next will go unrefuted. You left this thread not because you couldn't argue with the logic presented, but because there wasn't any logic presented, I wish I noticed that as early as you did .... I have met that type of person plenty of times on forums. They cannot BEAR to be contradicted, to such an extent that they will reply with nonsense in order to "win" (as they see it) the argument. My father is one of the people. I know the type well. When you fall silent in stunned amazement at how crazy they are being, they see this as a sign that they have defeated you. It's like the ones that post a problem with the computer and claim that the power supply must be at fault, regardless of how many times they are told that being unable to right-click .DOC files is not a power-related problem. Then when they replace the power supply and the problem continues, they ask what's wrong with the power supply, without even thinking that maybe the power supply wasn't the problem to begin with.Computers are a bit like cars, in a certain way. That is, there is a certain kind of person, usually male, who reckons he "knows about" them. Often this knowledge does not extend very far at all, and their desperate need to appear all-knowing prevents them from actually ever learning anything from other people.All I was saying is that if you make a statement that DOS does not exist in win2k and later then you have to accept the fact that DOS isn't DOS, because by your standard Microsoft still call it's command.com a DOS interperter. You can't have it both ways and say there is no DOS in Win2K and later OS's although Microsoft clearly say's it is. In the event you were unaware of this just type command and press enter. And if this is the last word thank you for you time DIAS and BC. I can assure you I have nothing left to add to this pointless discussion about what is and what isn't DOS. But I do APOLOGIZE Sincerely that my points were either misunderstood or not understood, and yes there is a difference. C:\>command Microsoft(R) Windows DOS (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001. C:\>cmd Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\> |
|