DOS Programs in XP Home and Pro

[Richard Wolford]

I'm currently doing a job at a doctor's office where we
are replacing some very old Win95 machines with newer
Compaqs running WinXP Home. I suggested that perhaps we
instead utilize XP Pro simply because there are several
older DOS programs that are being executed across the
network via shares mapped to drive letters. Naturally,
the slightly extra cost is causing contention. Does
anyone here know of any MS articles that would indicate
the XP Pro would be better suited at running multiple DOS
applications over a network? I would just like something
from MS that would show it to be a better choice
(regardless of the other reasons why Pro is better in the
workplace).

Thanks,

Richard

 

[**Steven**]

Neither version of XP is actually meant to handle DOS. You can get those old
dos programs to run in xp but it will be a real hassle and there will be
lots of problems down the road. Your clients best bet would be to get a more
modern program that does what those ancient programs do. If they insist on
keeping the dos programs, let them know that they will be needing you there
a lot to keep them running. The few dollars they will spend to get newer
programs will be well worth the headaches they will save.

 

[Richard Wolford]

Preaching to the choir brother! This doctor is extremely cheap, and what
started this is his snot-nosed little daughter acting like she knows
everything and said I was trying to rip him off, when in fact I was trying
my best to help them avoid problems. I've told them they need to modernize,
but they simply won't do it, so if anyone can find anything in regards to XP
Pro being even slightly better I would be very appreciative. I think this
girl already cost my company the job, but I wanted to try and follow up with
them and salvage what I can.

Thanks again,

Richard

 

[Malke]

Preaching to the choir brother! This doctor is extremely cheap,
and what started this is his snot-nosed little daughter acting like
she knows everything and said I was trying to rip him off, when in
fact I was trying
my best to help them avoid problems. I've told them they need to
modernize, but they simply won't do it, so if anyone can find anything
in regards to XP
Pro being even slightly better I would be very appreciative. I think
this girl already cost my company the job, but I wanted to try and
follow up with them and salvage what I can.

Thanks again,

Richard

I'm totally sympathetic, but neither XP Home or XP Pro is better at
running obsolete DOS programs. If Home can't run them, Pro won't be
able to either. Here is a link showing the differences between Pro and
Home: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.asp .

You will see that, among other things, Pro gives the ability to
fine-tune permissions and to connect to a domain. If they are insistent
on running Win95, they should buy up some older boxen, find some legal
copies of Win95 on eBay, and stockpile for the future.

Malke

 

[Stuart]

Honestly - if they never want to join a domain, support IIS or run multiple
CPUs, home should do, but feel free to check the source:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

You might swing it on Remote Desktop or advanced networking features, but it
sounds like your customer is something of a luddite

 

[Richard Wolford]

Heh I actually misspoke, my real concern is that the DOS programs are
being executed over a network, not local to the machines, talk about my
being way off My concern wasn't really that Home could run the actual
program better than Pro, but that Pro was more suited to running software
that is sitting on another computer (no client/server, just shares mapped to
drive letters).

My bad, but thanks for the input, it has been very helpful.

Richard

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Have you asked the doctor if he'd accept medical advice from your
daughter? ;-}

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[JasonA]

Would it be worth having a customer like that? I have ran DOS apps fine. One
advantage with Pro is that the security and the way directories are shared
is better - like NT 4 and 5 (2000). Whereas Home is strictly limited to (Pro
can be unset from this way) is close to 95/98 where you can't set individual
permissions on directories and files.

 

[JasonA]

Actually this where the host computer is of concern (the workstations can be
any). You are talking client server/ peer-to-peer. If less than 10 computers
you will get away with out a domain controller (dedicated server). I talked
my employer into spending heaps on a dedicated server with hot swappable
mirrored drives - some things have worked out for the better. Other things
like the reliability would roughly be the same on XP Pro compared to 2000
Server and they are running DOS software fine. Infact they are having heaps
less problems now than when they were hosting the program on a Windows 95 or
even 98 'server'. Things like caching etc should be turned off.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Heh I actually misspoke, my real concern is that the DOS programs are
being executed over a network, not local to the machines, talk about my
being way off My concern wasn't really that Home could run the actual
program better than Pro, but that Pro was more suited to running software
that is sitting on another computer (no client/server, just shares mapped to
drive letters).

There is nothing at all to stop Home running programs across a
'workgroup' network, which is what you will have had in Win95. The only
addition there with Pro is the ability to run a full NT Domain net -
which is probably inappropriate anyway. The other thing Pro could
provide is the full file/folder level access control in the NTFS file
system - which could be accessed by DOS programs running in the XP
Emulation for OS programs. I would myself think this highly desirable
where confidential information like Patient records was concerned

But I think there may be grave doubt about whether such DOS programs
will run under XP emulation, and hence on an XP machine *at all*.
Certainly your first step must be to make sure of this point on some XP
test machine,. And then decide on what course is possible. If they
insist on the DOS programs, then an upgrade to Win98 machines, while
that system is still obtainable at all, might be one course. Getting
things moved firmly off DOS would be best.

 

[JasonA]

You say XP domain - do you mean you would need to run a Windows 2000 or 2003
server? Otherwise it is still workgroup with the added advantage of the
permissions as you have stated.

 

[Alex Nichol]

You say XP domain - do you mean you would need to run a Windows 2000 or 2003
server? Otherwise it is still workgroup with the added advantage of the
permissions as you have stated.

I said NT Domain - you need Pro to be able to formally Join a domain.
In Home you get only workgroup facilities - including ability to log on
to a specific domain resource with permission from the domain admin.

You need Pro also to get the full scale permissions in NTFS - Home only
supports 'simple file sharing' on it (and Pro defaults to that). That
keeps an individual user's own file private, which is fine for any
stand-alone machine, but might be a factor in family networks - at least
for any machine being used in effect as server to one