DOS version

[Dave M.]

I have an environment of all XP pro machines. The majority
of the machines were all purchased together. The 4
machines in question were purchased at a later date.

The problem with these 4 machines is that they do not
execute batch files like all the original machines on the
network. They don't like file names that dont follow the
8.3 rule, they dont like the /q switch, and they dont seem
to support using variables in batch files.

My question is, is there any way to change the version of
DOS (if this is in fact the problem)? And if that isn't
the problem, I would appreciate any suggestions on what it
might be. Thanks

 

[Guest]

windows xp does not use DOS. You can download a free
version of dos at www.freedos.org

I don't know how that will help, since xp does not use
dos, it has it's own built in command line editor

 

[Crusty \(-: Old B@stard :-\)]

Forgot DOS version (there is no DOS in Windows XP). Check the Windows
version to see if they are different. From the command prompt type "winver".
The 4 in question, being later, may have SP1 installed. Could be the others
do not!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Guest]

Windows versions up from Windows 98 (not sure about WinME, never used it, but I know it sucks) use a DOS emulator. For some reason I can get some DOS programs that don't run with a normal double click in Windows, to run by executing the command from command.com. If that doesn't help at all, you may have to try running the program in compatilbilty mode or check to see if the memory settings for the file are correct. It could be that none of these helps, I'm just whipping out a suggestion from the top of my head, better than nothing right.

 

[Dave M.]

Checked the windows version, they are both exactly the
same, service pack and all.

I am aware there is no DOS in XP, I was just referring to
the DOS box that batch files execute in, would there be
any way to force batch files to execute in a free version
on DOS?

The only thing different about the 4 machines is the
hardware, all operating software is exactly the same.

 

[Yves Leclerc]

NO! Windows 95, 98 and ME never used a DOS Emulator. They still used the
MS DOS. Windows ME does not allow you to access a DOS prompt.

Windows NT, 2000 and XP never used DOS. They only have a a DOS emulator
"cmd".

Windows versions up from Windows 98 (not sure about WinME, never used it,

but I know it sucks) use a DOS emulator. For some reason I can get some DOS
programs that don't run with a normal double click in Windows, to run by
executing the command from command.com. If that doesn't help at all, you
may have to try running the program in compatilbilty mode or check to see if
the memory settings for the file are correct. It could be that none of
these helps, I'm just whipping out a suggestion from the top of my head,
better than nothing right.

 

[Steve Nielsen]

Windows versions up from Windows 98 (not sure about WinME, never used
it, but I know it sucks) use a DOS emulator. For some reason I can
get some DOS programs that don't run with a normal double click in
Windows, to run by executing the command from command.com. If that
doesn't help at all, you may have to try running the program in
compatilbilty mode or check to see if the memory settings for the
file are correct. It could be that none of these helps, I'm just
whipping out a suggestion from the top of my head, better than
nothing right.

Just FYI, Windows ME was also DOS based, however ALL incarnations of
Windows NT (which includes Windows 2000 & XP) have never had DOS either.

Steve

 

[Plato]

I have an environment of all XP pro machines. The majority
of the machines were all purchased together. The 4
machines in question were purchased at a later date.

If you need to run old dos stuff use a pc with dos.

 

[NobodyMan]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:01:28 -0400, "Yves Leclerc"

d".

but I know it sucks) use a DOS emulator. For some reason I can get some DOS
programs that don't run with a normal double click in Windows, to run by
executing the command from command.com. If that doesn't help at all, you
may have to try running the program in compatilbilty mode or check to see if
the memory settings for the file are correct. It could be that none of
these helps, I'm just whipping out a suggestion from the top of my head,
better than nothing right.

NO! Windows 95, 98 and ME never used a DOS Emulator. They still used the
MS DOS. Windows ME does not allow you to access a DOS prompt.

Windows NT, 2000 and XP never used DOS. They only have a a DOS emulator
"cm

Relax. Reread the post you responded to. TJF never said that 95, 98
and ME used a DOS emulater. He stated that versions after 98 ("up
from Windows 98") used a DOS emulator; he didn't know about ME.

So no, he wasn't wrong.

 

[Alex Nichol]

The problem with these 4 machines is that they do not
execute batch files like all the original machines on the
network. They don't like file names that dont follow the
8.3 rule, they dont like the /q switch, and they dont seem
to support using variables in batch files.

This sounds as if you are starting out from a run of command.com - that
is a shell of genuine DOS code but it is from DOS 5 days, before long
names. You should be running from cmd.exe - the 32 bit emulator. Check
the Files association for BAT with regedit.exe at
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\battfile\shell\open\command
to make sure that it is using the 'Default' of
"%1" %*

and *not* one that invokes command.com

 

[Alex Nichol]

Just FYI, Windows ME was also DOS based, however ALL incarnations of
Windows NT (which includes Windows 2000 & XP) have never had DOS either.

That is one to dispute. The Win9x systems used a DOS phase to load
them, up to but not including ME, and had some 16 bit code left from
DOS, and a DOS 16 bit subsystem that could be run *under windows* in
'Virtual 86' 16 bit mode. But the system was a 32 bit kernel, and that
took all operations right from initial interrupt handling, itself. It
is instructive to read Andrew Schulmann's 'Unauthorised Windows 95' on
the handling of the clock from a DOS program: it made a DOS INT 32 call
which was picked up by the 32 bit kernel. That decided this was best
handled by a 16 bit handler, which it loaded. that then made a BIOS
interrupt to get the time, again picked up by the 32 bit kernel, which
passed back a value from its own windows clock - *not* the motherboard
RTC.

 

[Chiam123]

Windows versions up from Windows 98 (not sure about WinME, never used it, but

I know it sucks) use a DOS emulator.

THATTTTS why Gorillas runs so slow!!!

 

[Steve Nielsen]

Steve Nielsen wrote:




That is one to dispute. The Win9x systems used a DOS phase to load
them, up to but not including ME, and had some 16 bit code left from
DOS, and a DOS 16 bit subsystem that could be run *under windows* in
'Virtual 86' 16 bit mode. But the system was a 32 bit kernel, and that
took all operations right from initial interrupt handling, itself. It
is instructive to read Andrew Schulmann's 'Unauthorised Windows 95' on
the handling of the clock from a DOS program: it made a DOS INT 32 call
which was picked up by the 32 bit kernel. That decided this was best
handled by a 16 bit handler, which it loaded. that then made a BIOS
interrupt to get the time, again picked up by the 32 bit kernel, which
passed back a value from its own windows clock - *not* the motherboard
RTC.

Interesting. Thanks for that info!

Steve