DOS-WINDOWS combination???why?no offense

The Matrix:Reloaded..Did you like it?

  • Yeah it was great!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • eh, it was ok

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It sucks! What the hell were they thinking!?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Didnt watch it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
Not open for further replies.


Beta member
The reason why I submitted this new thread is that Im just to much curious about these things.

Well!, Why is it that windows is dependent on the Disk Operating System ion order to function. Is there any ways where in windows operating system can stand on its own..!!!! without utilizing a DOS under the OS itself....!

Im just curious....

Can anyone answer my question...thanks a lot...:confused:
I was about to say. NT and later OS's dont need DOS whatsoever, they just have a DOS emulator so thet we can utilize the commands that DOS has.
Um... you could put the bios flash on a disk with, and then just start up with that. Easiest way to do it.
What does he mean by "DOS" ?

Can an operating system operate without a dos when it is going to reside on a disc ?

Whether "DOS" is inside o under Windows it is still there !

Ofcourse MSDOS cant read NTFS filing systems, that makes me nervous and why I have used 2k & XP on FAT32 formats.

Noteworth, 2k even has an enhancement to some DOS commands. for instance :-

I use XCOPY for a simple and straightforward backup routine, making report to log file. In 2k I can make a DATE command with an {ENTER} to indicate that it worked that day.

In 98 the routine hangs waiting for the {ENTER} keypress, untill timeout.
Wasn't DOS, (which microsoft bought from a local company and pawned off to IBM) dealing with the 640k memory limitation and that is why early versions of Windows "sat a'top" the legacy operating HAL bound to the GUI? Windows had no control itself over the filesystem(only by using dos execs), and filemangler, I mean winfile held strict adherence to DOS functionality? Then there was memmaker for emm386.sys and Quarterdeck (I think) that was able to overcome the 640k but it wasn't until NT w/ the new HAL that they were able to break away from 640k....and have something other than files=15, buffers=30, dos=himem, umb and emm386 to manage memory, I am no expert and do not profess to know how the widgets work with how the operating system is made.

I still partition a small part for DOS on an NT server(to boot into if necessary) and have use a DOS boot disk to start many installs of it kindasorta still all depends on DOS...wait, I'm wrong, booting off the CD-ROM overcomes that. I guess you could use all non-dos stuff for partitioning.

Also, is, io.sys, msdos.sys considered DOS files, or NT files or what? These old system files are there just for DOS, or does NT now use them as well? sys c: still necessary? Sorry for rambling, I could be completely off mark too! ;)

Something I heard that may be completely full of it: Steve jobs gave Bill Gates some jabs about still having to see the DOS bootup text when 95 debued and that a real OS didn't have such archaic aesthetics...and that's why there has been the low graphic blue screen with a wiggly bottom band since w95.

btw I had too much coffee this morning!
Or you could also look at it as getting two OS's for the price of one... Considering that, if my memory from reading it serves me right, Mac OSX now includes Unix, to compensate for limitations in programming or some'n like that.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom