Norton Utilities had programs that worked with DOS and the DOS underbelly of Windows 9X but not with the later windows including Windows N*. bs -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 3/31/15, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] dos usb driver! To: "Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS." <freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015, 6:00 PM Hi, Matej, I respect your opinion, but I don't see how Dennis is correct at all here. On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Matej Horvat <matej.hor...@guest.arnes.si> wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:38:47 +0200, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:09 PM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> <sigh> This is OS development 101. Do you think a new OS intended as >>> a followup to an existing product throws out the baby with the >>> bathwater and does everything differently, so existing apps won't run? >> >> YES!!! Are you really this naive? I'm honestly not even cynical enough >> for this. Lots of companies throw everything away, on purpose, and >> expect everyone else to just deal with it. If they can get away with >> it, they absolutely will do it. > > While this is generally true, in this case Dennis is correct. > > Anyone interested in how Windows 9x uses DOS should read this excellent > overview by Windows developer Raymond Chen (his blog is full of > interesting DOS/Windows history): > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/12/24/6849530.aspx In no way did I pretend that "real mode" MS-DOS was directly controlling the "pmode" or GUI stuff. But this article even says that WIN.COM was still called, and DOS was still used. It swapped back and forth to 16-bit, when needed, using VMs (presumably meaning V86 mode here). That's just normal 386 functionality, by design, and EMM386 itself always runs in V86 mode (but we still call it "DOS", right?). My point was that "real" DOS was still present (and crucially needed, not just for DOS-only programs). Granted, Windows did have its own DPMI server, so that was not itself DOS-based, and you couldn't directly use other DPMI servers (like CWSDPMI). I'm also not saying there weren't overrides for special 32-bit disk drivers or whatnot. I just think his idea here is naive, saying that anything beyond 8086 real mode isn't DOS. That's not really true here. Just magically waving the "32-bit" flag doesn't mean DOS doesn't exist anymore. (quoting): "Now, there are parts of MS-DOS that are unrelated to file I/O. Those functions were still handled by MS-DOS since they were just 'helper library' type functions and there was no benefit to reimplementing them in 32-bit code ...." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
