Dos...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan T Williams
  • Start date Start date
Ivan said:
Can someone tell me how to boot into DOS on a Win XP PC?
Click to expand...

Unless you installed DOS as an alternative "boot" system, you cannot.
DOS is a completely different operating system than Windows XP. Windows
XP does not provide DOS.

You can get DOS emulation in the "command prompt" box inside of Windows
XP. See Microsoft's web site for more details on the
functionality/limitations of this feature of XP.
 
Good question. What I just discovered, is to boot up using the F8 to stop
the boot. When you get a menu of how to boot, choose the one that says
boot line by line. The last line says "Win" ; answer no to this one.
This works in Windows 95 and probably still works on the XP, although I
haven't actually tried it.
 
But if you are using the NTFS file system, this will not allow you to access
the hard drive.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers aka "Nutcase" MS-MVP - Win9x

Associate Expert - WinXP - Expert Zone
 
true , but that is not what was asked.

"Can someone tell me how to boot into DOS on a Win XP >
PC?"
 
Your question was answered...you can't boot into DOS with XP.

As stated before, unless you have set up a dual-boot system with DOS
on one partition and XP on another, the only option you will have is
to boot from an MS-DOS or Win98 floppy disk. This will give you a
command prompt, but if your hard drive is partitioned as NTFS(which it
probably is), you won't be able to access the drive when you boot with
a DOS disk.

Good Luck...

GLCrews,MCP
 
Jack said:
Good question. What I just discovered, is to boot up using the F8 to stop
the boot. When you get a menu of how to boot, choose the one that says
boot line by line. The last line says "Win" ; answer no to this one.
This works in Windows 95 and probably still works on the XP, although I
haven't actually tried it.
Click to expand...

The method of booting in XP is entirely different and that does not
work. There is not even a line by line, and the 'Safe Mode Command
line' is a basic version of XP< with a command rather than GUI, and is
*not* DOS.

The only way to boot to a real DOS is to boot a DOS floppy (or CD) such
as a Win98 startup floppy. And if the XP Hard disk is formatted in
NTFS, such a boot will not see that without extra third party software
 
XP is the software that basically said DOS is DEAD. Why people will not
accept it is beyond me, but there are people that still think 8 track tapes
are the latest technology. If a user want to run XP and still keep OLD DOS
programs, that were written years ago, they need to realize their common
sense is missing. If they want to continue running these programs, dig out
an old machine from the junk yard and run it on that.



Jack said:
Good question. What I just discovered, is to boot up using the F8 to stop
the boot. When you get a menu of how to boot, choose the one that says
boot line by line. The last line says "Win" ; answer no to this one.
This works in Windows 95 and probably still works on the XP, although I
haven't actually tried it.
Click to expand...

The method of booting in XP is entirely different and that does not
work. There is not even a line by line, and the 'Safe Mode Command
line' is a basic version of XP< with a command rather than GUI, and is
*not* DOS.

The only way to boot to a real DOS is to boot a DOS floppy (or CD) such
as a Win98 startup floppy. And if the XP Hard disk is formatted in
NTFS, such a boot will not see that without extra third party software
 
Donald said:
XP is the software that basically said DOS is DEAD. Why people will not
accept it is beyond me, but there are people that still think 8 track tapes
are the latest technology. If a user want to run XP and still keep OLD DOS
programs, that were written years ago, they need to realize their common
sense is missing. If they want to continue running these programs, dig out
an old machine from the junk yard and run it on that.
Click to expand...
You are probably one of those that believe that main frames are dead
also. There are a large number of programs out there that do the job
perfectly without having to be rewritten every couple of years to work
with the latest and greatest OS. Most companies can not afford to
rewrite a working program and retrain the users every time Microsoft
thinks it does not have enough cash. A lot of the old DOS programs are
faster and less error prone than the new Windows compliant replacements.
A lot of people like the older programs becuase of a simpler interface,
the lack of unnecessary bells and whistles, and becuase they know them.
Other people like programs that are not available at all in a Windows
version.
Why should people throw out good programs just because the OS doesn't
want to support them anymore? UNIX doesn't break old programs, so why
should Windows?
 
Michael W Ryder said:
Donald Link wrote:

You are probably one of those that believe that main frames are dead
also. There are a large number of programs out there that do the job
perfectly without having to be rewritten every couple of years to work
with the latest and greatest OS. Most companies can not afford to
rewrite a working program and retrain the users every time Microsoft
thinks it does not have enough cash. A lot of the old DOS programs are
faster and less error prone than the new Windows compliant replacements.
A lot of people like the older programs becuase of a simpler interface,
the lack of unnecessary bells and whistles, and becuase they know them.
Other people like programs that are not available at all in a Windows
version.
Why should people throw out good programs just because the OS doesn't
want to support them anymore? UNIX doesn't break old programs, so why
should Windows?
Click to expand...
In which case why install the latest OS on these machines in the first
place? Leave them running DOS.

DOS is old technology and if everyone decided to keep using old technology,
we'd all still be sitting in caves hitting dogs on the head with a club for
our dinner.... :)

Lorne
 
Lorne said:
In which case why install the latest OS on these machines in the first
place? Leave them running DOS.

DOS is old technology and if everyone decided to keep using old technology,
we'd all still be sitting in caves hitting dogs on the head with a club for
our dinner.... :)

Lorne
Click to expand...
Personally, if Adobe had released its programs in a version that
supported OS/2 I would have stayed with OS/2. The support for
multi-tasking was far superior in OS/2. Unfortunately marketing won out
over a superior product. Plus, try to purchase a copy of DOS today at
your local computer store. I can usually get those DOS programs I want
to run to run under Windows XP, but not always.
If Detroit can make cars that essentially are the same as they were 100
years ago, why can't Microsoft make a operating system that can run
programs that are less than 10 years old while eliminating the security
issues that exist with DOS programs running in a multi-user environment?
I think the reason is that there isn't enough market, so they don't
spend the money or time.
 
Michael W Ryder said:
Personally, if Adobe had released its programs in a version that
supported OS/2 I would have stayed with OS/2. The support for
multi-tasking was far superior in OS/2. Unfortunately marketing won out
over a superior product. Plus, try to purchase a copy of DOS today at
your local computer store. I can usually get those DOS programs I want
to run to run under Windows XP, but not always.
If Detroit can make cars that essentially are the same as they were 100
years ago, why can't Microsoft make a operating system that can run
programs that are less than 10 years old while eliminating the security
issues that exist with DOS programs running in a multi-user environment?
I think the reason is that there isn't enough market, so they don't
spend the money or time.
Click to expand...

Would you spend potentially millions on developing something only a tiny
number of people will use?

Lorne
 
Michael W Ryder said:
Lorne Smith wrote:

Personally, if Adobe had released its programs in a version that
supported OS/2 I would have stayed with OS/2. The support for
multi-tasking was far superior in OS/2. Unfortunately marketing won out
over a superior product. Plus, try to purchase a copy of DOS today at
your local computer store. I can usually get those DOS programs I want
to run to run under Windows XP, but not always.
If Detroit can make cars that essentially are the same as they were 100
years ago, why can't Microsoft make a operating system that can run
programs that are less than 10 years old while eliminating the security
issues that exist with DOS programs running in a multi-user environment?
I think the reason is that there isn't enough market, so they don't
spend the money or time.
Click to expand...

Forgot to add... Your car analogy doesn't work. One cannot put the
carburettor from a Ferrari into a Ford Model T... Hell, you can't even put
it into a Jaguar XKS :)

There is and has to be a finite limit as to how long you support legacy
software. Continued support of these only holds back the development of new
technology. If you want to continue to use the old software by all means do
so, just don't expect to be able to do so on the latest technology... XP
CAN run most DOS application, but only if they don't access hardware
directly. This is essential to prevent such applications conflicting with
Windows' control of the hardware and causing a potentially damaging system
crash.

To date, I've not found any DOS applications I couldn't make work on XP that
don't directly access hardware...

Lorne
 
Lorne said:
Forgot to add... Your car analogy doesn't work. One cannot put the
carburettor from a Ferrari into a Ford Model T... Hell, you can't even put
it into a Jaguar XKS :)
Click to expand...

But if you know how to drive a Model T you can drive a Ferrari. The
same is not true with programs written for DOS and Windows XP. People
with limited mobility often find the DOS versions of programs easier to
use because they can not use the fine control of the mouse.

There is and has to be a finite limit as to how long you support legacy
software. Continued support of these only holds back the development of new
technology. If you want to continue to use the old software by all means do
so, just don't expect to be able to do so on the latest technology... XP
CAN run most DOS application, but only if they don't access hardware
directly. This is essential to prevent such applications conflicting with
Windows' control of the hardware and causing a potentially damaging system
crash.
Click to expand...
I just wonder if the DOS support in OS/2 had this problem. I could run
DOS programs under it with no problems. Since OS/2 is the base for
Windows NT and hence XP something happened in the translation.
As far as continued support, there are still COBOL programs in daily use
and they do what is needed of them. Writing new programs to replace a
working program is a waste, and with today's market a waste that is not
allowed. Why should someone spend a million dollars or more to replace
programs that work? Just because some person with no experience in the
real world decides that there is no need for something doesn't mean
there isn't. There are entire industries supplying support for products
that the original manufacturers abandoned.
To date, I've not found any DOS applications I couldn't make work on XP that
don't directly access hardware...
Click to expand...

Try The Elder Scrolls Arena. I can get the game to run fine until it
comes to the part where the actual game starts.
 
Michael W Ryder said:
Lorne Smith wrote:


But if you know how to drive a Model T you can drive a Ferrari. The
same is not true with programs written for DOS and Windows XP. People
with limited mobility often find the DOS versions of programs easier to
use because they can not use the fine control of the mouse.
Click to expand...

To "drive" would equate to "use software", wheras as to "run software" would
equate to "start the car with incorrect parts"...
I just wonder if the DOS support in OS/2 had this problem. I could run
DOS programs under it with no problems. Since OS/2 is the base for
Windows NT and hence XP something happened in the translation.
As far as continued support, there are still COBOL programs in daily use
and they do what is needed of them. Writing new programs to replace a
working program is a waste, and with today's market a waste that is not
allowed. Why should someone spend a million dollars or more to replace
programs that work? Just because some person with no experience in the
real world decides that there is no need for something doesn't mean
there isn't. There are entire industries supplying support for products
that the original manufacturers abandoned.
Click to expand...

I can't comment here as I never use OS/2...
Try The Elder Scrolls Arena. I can get the game to run fine until it
comes to the part where the actual game starts.
Click to expand...

That's to be expected... Games access the video hardware directly, but
normally only when they actually start the game engine itself...

Lorne
 
Back
Top