Talk:MS-DOS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MS-DOS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

WikiProject Computing / Software	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Information technology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Archives
1

Contents 1 DIR 2 Windows NT/2000/XP COMMAND.COM Version (Bug) 3 MS-DOS 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 4 formatting disks 5 Merge from MS-DOS 6.22 6 Citation for Unreferenced discussion of MS-DOS 7 7 Proposed merge-in of DOS

[edit] DIR

The "DIR" example needs to be changed. The output looks more like UNIX/Linux. I've never seen any such output from a DOS "DIR".

Thats probably from a Windows machine running an updated version of DOS. Older DOSes, as you most rightly probably see, did not comma-separate nor tab out the display as nicely as the newer DOSes did. Dysprosia 12:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It looked very strange to me. I replaced it with a heavily edited version of my root directory, from Windows 98. I stripped off the LFNs, I think it's pretty much the same as DOS now. -- Tim Starling 12:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, comma separation came round v6.2, but I don't think we really need any of this to dig that far back :) Nice work Dysprosia

[edit] Windows NT/2000/XP COMMAND.COM Version (Bug)

This is not really a bug. In WinXP (and presumably 2000, 2003, Vista, etc.) there is a VER.EXE file in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 which displays the Windows XP version number 5.1. COMMAND.COM finds a file VER in the search path, and executes it, displaying "Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1 . . . ]". For some reason, when COMMAND is called with /c or /k it executes the internal ver command (which is normal DOS behavior); but when VER is typed it searches for VER executable files, instead of using the internal command (weird).

Command.com is the same in Win2k and WinXP. There is no VER.EXE, either. What happens is that when you run a DOS program, commands are passed through to the underlying CMD.EXE or 4NT.EXE. You can see this by running dir /2 (an extended 4nt switch) under both of these.

When command.com is run with /c or /k, the environment created is to allow programs to communicate with assorted TSR programs, and here it needs a DOS-like string to answer to the programs. This is why it returns strings like MS-DOS 5.00.500. Wendy.krieger 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the version 5.0 or version 5.1 refers to the Windows NT version, not the DOS version. I seriously doubt that Windows NT contains the DOS 5.0 or 5.1 command.com. 71.159.225.121 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The version of DOS in Windows NT (all versions), is "5.00.500". Unlike OS/2 (where DOS version is OS/2 version is 20.xx) it has nothing to do with the underlying NT. The dos from Windows 2000 is bitwise equal to the one in windows XP, although vista has a different ntbio.sys and command.com. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the version of Dos in WinXp, etc, is roughly the same as in Windows 98 or Windows ME. The part about it being DOS 5 is certainly incorrect, although which version actually version it is hasn't been identified. For instance, you can type mem /c, which was a feature first created in dos 6.0. I rewrote the section to remove the incorrect claim. Xeos (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the command.com in all versions of Windows NT forked from DOS 5. Some "new" commands or features were backported, but certainly not the stuff in win9x. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Calling it dos 5 is still clearly incorrect, and beside the point. Even if the code is based on DOS 5 (as is, for instance, dos 6), it's been heavily changed. If there was a fork (and I would like to see an external citation as independent evidence of this), that itself might be worth noting on the article, but calling it Dos 5 is grossly misleading. Xeos (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if command.com simply hasn't been changed since 5, just updates and changes to the accompanying utilities. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my memory is incorrect - dos 5 did have the mem command. But according to this page, http://www.textfiles.com/hacking/MICROSOFT/dosundoc.txt dos 5 had a ver /r switch, and the so-called dos 5 in WinXP, et al, does not. If the dosundoc.txt file is to be believed, there is actually lots of evidence that the DOS in WinXp is not 5, or 6, even. Try dir, which is supposed to show hidden files in 5 and 6, but does not in command.com under Winxp. Xeos (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Well, egg on my face, if you call ver /r or dir, using the command.com /k switch, you get the proper dos 5 or 6 behavior. just starting command.com gives you strange intermediate results. Xeos (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a PC dos 5.0 disk and it's command.com file is 47,987 bytes. The windows command.com file i s50,620 bytes. But, PC dos isn't necessarily MS-dos. Xeos (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing about "DOS version x.xx" is that there are particular system calls (functions 30h and 33.06h) which any program can look at the DOS running. WinNT DOS reports 5.00 and 5.50 here. Programs that require DOS 6.0 or greater won't run, while all of the utilities of PC-DOS or MS-DOS 5.00 will happily run here. I have a desktop icon pointing to PC-DOS 5.00 command.com, without modifications, that runs quite happily in Windows NT. Edlin.exe and debug.exe are indeed identical in MS-DOS 5.0 and in Windows 2000.

The internal DOS version does not necessarily match either what Command.com or the box says. We have, eg a product IBM-DOS 6.00 with command.com saying 6.10, and truever 6.00. PC-DOS 6.10 has command saying 6.10, truever 6.00, MS-DOS 6.21 says command.com 6.21, ver 6.20. and then of course the Windows 9x versions. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MS-DOS 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0

Do these operating systems ever refer to themselves by these names? I have Windows Me and when I type VER at it's DOS prompt it says "Windows Millennium [Version 4.90.3000]"

There is a DOS function (not a shell command but a function to be used inside .EXEs) that returns a DOS version number to a program (the exact function number eludes me ATM). That's where these numbers come from. -- 85.179.170.121 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Programs would check that int 21 call to see what version was running, and it's maintained for that reason. While the products aren't actually released as "MS-DOS", the code does say "I'm DOS v 7". JenKilmer 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you run something like MSD.EXE (from DOS 6.22) or Manifest (QEMM), or even 4DOS, the true DOS version is displayed. This is the one set in the DOS kernel, not just a string that command.com prints. DOS in Windows 95a is 7.0, 95c, 98, 98SE is 7.1, and WinME is 8.0. One notes that both IBM-DOS 6.1 and PC-DOS 6.1 return 6.0 in this environment. Wendy.krieger 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually MS-DOS version 7.X and MS-DOS 8.X were also by them selves but these versions were not in the open market. These were integrated in Windows 9x. In fact I'm actually running it in a Virtual PC 2007.

So how can I find out the true MS-DOS version of my current OS, Windows XP Pro; SP3 --John R. Sellers (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find the true DOS version, by running a program that reports it. Windows NT runs DOS 5.00 (edlin,exe and debug.exe from NT (eg XP), are bytewise equal to that in MS-DOS 5.00a (ie 1991.11.11 date). --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The DOS version would be 8, since it's newer than Win ME. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that would be the major version number, and the minor version number would be something like "1c", making it Microsoft OS 8.1c? So Windows 7 would be Microsoft OS 10, right? --John R. Sellers (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything other than the eight, because the DOS version is no longer tied to the Windows version. It was incremented while DOS-based windows versions were produced, but it stopped with DOS 8 with Me. After Me, it was only a compatibility object for the DOS subsystem (NTVDM) and placed on the boot disks, so it's never been upgraded. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MS-DOS 7.11 was inside later version of Windows 95 and in Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE. MS-DOS 7.11 had USB support which was the reason why some version Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows 98 Se supported these buses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.71.106 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There never was an "MS-DOS 7.11". It's 7.10 in all three versions (OSR2, 98FE, 98SE). Native DOS does not support either USB or Long file names. Apart from a few files like IO.SYS, DOS was not upgraded through the three versions.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] formatting disks

When formatting CD's in XP MSDos and it comes up to ask what is the volume label, what is that? Please advise. I'm not that familiar with Dos. Thank you. pthreads10 Pthreads10 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See volume label; think of it like the name under the disk icon in "my computer". JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from MS-DOS 6.22

I didn't place the tags, but I support merging. There isn't much content in that article, and I think it belongs best with the discussions of versions here. The tag is in the "End of" section, but I think it would be best at the end of the section above. There's a little discussion of the 6.x changes in the "Legal issues" section; maybe put some of that up after the MS-DOS 5 discussion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Unreferenced discussion of MS-DOS 7

It states in the topic about MS-DOS 7 once being created as a stand-alone project, although no citation available. It's been since April 2008 since a ref? was created. The only site I could find any information about it was on Computer Hope. It states "The latest stand alone version of MS-DOS is 6.22. Microsoft Windows 95 and 98 included a version of MS-DOS known as 7.0. While a user is capable of utilizing MS-DOS 7.0 through Microsoft Windows, MS-DOS 7.0 cannot be purchased as a stand alone version and requires Microsoft Windows be installed to run."^[1] However, IBM did release a version 7 of their PC-DOS in 1995, possibly to rival MS-DOS 7.0. But once again, these are assumptions, which have been in this article for about a year now.

tldr; Can we only assume that Microsoft was going to create a stand-alone copy of MS-DOS 7, rather than make assumptions and stick it in the article? I believe we should remove this information altogether by a certain date, and state that MS-DOS 6.22 was the last stand-alone copy Microsoft released, and they removed it from marketing on November 30, 2001. Troyoda1990 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple things. First, there was something that was brought up somewhere on a talk page, but I can't find it now, about an MS-DOS 7 that someone else made from Win 9x with the BOOTGUI option off. It's called "MS-DOS 7.1" or "MS-DOS 7.10"; google "MS-DOS 7.10" and you'll find some forum discussions about it, and this link appears to be the project home page. Separately is this link, which is a document from MS that was produced in the antitrust case; it would seem to support that a MS-DOS 7 from Microsoft was at least discussed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There was never any serious discussion to make a standalone MS-DOS 7. That last document discusses ways of taking the Chicago kernel and architecture without a GUI - a Win32 console. It also doesn't take any of those idea seriously it was unfeasible and uninteresting and wouldn't gain any meaningful market. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Microsoft did prepare two betas of "MS-DOS 7.0", based on 6.00 and 6.22 code. The former is still found around the internet, while Schuhmann "Undocumented DOS" refers to a MS-DOS 7 with Drivespace in it. Microsoft was playing a wait and see, to see if there was enough interest in the already released DR-DOS 7 and PC-DOS 7, to see if the DOS market would survive Windows 95 release. However, we note at this time, magazines like DOS Tools went out of publication, and much of the world took up Windows 95. MS-DOS 7.0 was never released as a stand alone product.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MS-DOS, as the boot component of Windows 95, has Drivespace. MSDOS 7 as a beta product never existed outside of Windows 95. This stuff is not important enough for Wikipedia, particularly the stuff based on crap found on the Internet and not documentation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm pretty sure a memo from Microsoft produced during the MS antitrust case would meet WP:RS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The only documentation I could find referencing MS-DOS 7.0 is on Microsoft, only for an Error Message on Windows 95. Also, over-reading the United States v. Microsoft Anti-Trust Case transcript, its only reference to MS-DOS states that a function was not available for printers like in Windows, which has nothing to do with marketing or product placement of MS-DOS Version 7.0 as a standalone product. Thus, we should only remove the sentence until a reliable source is found. This is like saying Microsoft originally planned to create another 9x-based operating system after Windows ME as a standalone product, but decided to focus only on Windows XP for home users. Troyoda1990 (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant the link in my first reply here; seems to be a discussion over a possible version 7 that eventually became improved DOS compatibility in Win95. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, I tried clicking on that PDF File, along with this one being the same, and it gave me a 403 Forbidden page. However, if you do believe that the pdf file can backup the statement of "MS-DOS 7 was considered for shipment as a standalone product," then by all means, we should use the PDF as a reference for the statement. Troyoda1990 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There was never any serious discussion to make a standalone MS-DOS 7. That document doesn't take any of those ideas seriously; it was unfeasible and uninteresting and wouldn't gain any meaningful market. There is no indication this is anything other than a low-level project manager brainstorm. It is a huge leap without contextual justification to go from this document from a small group or single PM to engaging an entire corporate division to "consider" a new product. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

OUTDENT Not sure why the PDF gave you trouble, site hiccup maybe? I'd link the google HTML version, but it's pretty mangled. As for this as a citation, "unfeasible and uninteresting and wouldn't gain any meaningful market" isn't anything citable here. It may be true, but it's OR. Of course, keep the context of this memo in mind- it's dated Feb 1993, when Win95 was two years from release (indeed, it's referred to as Chicago). The concern is whether it should cite "although at first DOS 7 (which was the DOS part included in Windows 95) had been developed as a standalone OS", which it doesn't, because that says "developed". I'd recommend changing the first paragraph to read

MS-DOS has effectively ceased to exist as a platform for desktop computing. After initial discussions of a possible MS-DOS 7,(cite) it eventually became fully integrated into Windows 95, used mostly for bootstrapping, and would never again be officially released as a standalone DOS.

I think the memo is a sufficient citation for that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link for that PDF: [1] Some discussion on it would be grand before changing this section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The second line worked this time, for some reason I keep getting the error. Anyways, I would like to second the paragraph suggestion. Since you came up with it, you should add it yourself to get credit for it, but as always, it's best to leave the topic open for discussion. Troyoda1990 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I also reread through it and I found it interesting how they called some consumers "Windows Haters." It's like they separated Windows, MS-DOS, and Chicago into three divisions, while Windows was still based off the [Program Manager] interface. They also had multiple plans for how to go through with MS-DOS 7. Very interesting read. Troyoda1990 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose using this as a reference. One single "idea" document from a small group is not evidence that Microsoft (meaning the company as a whole) had any interest in a standalone DOS 7 product. If the document had come from a major executive and contained some directives to explore costs for doing any of these options, that would be different. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then should we just remove the sentence altogether, or reword it to make sense to the time era of the release of Windows 95? For example:

MS-DOS 7 was developed along with Windows 95, the successor to Windows 3.1, and as a platform for desktop computing, Windows 95 was much easier to use Microsoft's command-driven operating system. As a result, MS-DOS 7 was integrated into Windows 95 and its kernel, combining the separate products into one.

Yes, it's worded weird, but I'm getting the overall idea out. The statement states nothing about development of MS-DOS 7 as a standalone product, but the phrase I wrote about 95 being much easier to use makes sense to why it wouldn't be. Do we really need to say that MS-DOS 7 was considered to be a standalone product? It's like saying Windows XP SP2 was such a great update, it was considered to be sold as a standalone product like Windows 98 SE. Those are assumptions, which is what the sentence written is. We can just state that MS-DOS 6.22 was the last copy to be sold in stores. Troyoda1990 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I searched the history and found an IP had added that statement about a year ago, and it was immediately tagged with cn. I just went through the article doing some copyediting and moving and I just reverted back to the text from a year ago, then re-wrote that.

Other changes I made were to make things more clear, more flow along a timeline, remove references to "recent" and "latest" when referring to versions of Windows released eight years ago, etc. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I was on the fence about whether it was worth mention or not, so might as well go without it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm glad we covered this section. I never knew one line would cause so much drama on Wikipedia's Talk page. haha. Troyoda1990 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge-in of DOS