Re: MS DOS
From: Ken Blake, MVP (kblake_at_this.is.an.invalid.domain)
Date: 03/14/04
- Next message: carly: "RPC shutdown problem."
- Previous message: Keith Denton: "Re: RPC shutdown problem."
- In reply to: zizz: "Re: MS DOS"
- Next in thread: Richard Urban: "Re: MS DOS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:38:32 -0700
In news:c7b501c4096c$fb0456a0$a301280a@phx.gbl,
zizz <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
> My apology Ken -
Thanks, and not a problem.
> This is largely a matter of semantics.
> DOS is not there - DOS functions are there.
Yes and no. Although many DOS functions are there, not all are.
That's one of the respects in which it isn't the same as true
DOS.
> Like taxi's in Chicago - There are no cabs made by
> Checker Cab Co. But there is still a taxi company in
> Chicago and it's named Checker. And like no DOS in XP,
> it still gets you from point A to B via a Command line.
Yes, but again, it may get you from point A to point B, C, D, or
E, but not to point F. Windows XP's DOS emulation is very similar
to true DOS, but it's not identical. There are, for example, a
significant number of programs that will run in DOS, but that
won't run at XP's command prompt.
For that reason (and others), it's important to distinguish
between real DOS and what XP does. In my view, it's more than
just semantics; calling it DOS obscures those differences instead
of making them clear.
-- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup
- Next message: carly: "RPC shutdown problem."
- Previous message: Keith Denton: "Re: RPC shutdown problem."
- In reply to: zizz: "Re: MS DOS"
- Next in thread: Richard Urban: "Re: MS DOS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
