no keyboard

[Guest parismom]

how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using

select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without

keyboard?

 

thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

 

parismom

[Guest Don Phillipson]

Re: no keyboard

 

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using

> select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without

> keyboard?

> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

 

This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

MS-DOS which requires a KB (and may require a KB

even to boot up OK.) You can experiment by:

1. Booting Win98 in Safe Mode

2. Unplugging KB and operating solely by mouse.

 

You probably cannot do without the KB. E.g. if for

any reason you lost your mouse config files you

might need KB Tab and Ret keys in order to continue

any setup process. If for whatever reason you went

to the BIOS Setup menu you could do nothing without

those keys.

 

Experimentation will also show you how to "select

multiple individual files with mouse only," e.g.

A. Mouse click with Ctrl key held down to

add multiple files one by one to your selection.

B. To select a continuous list of files, hold down

the Shift key and click Mouse on first and last

filenames in the sequence.

 

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

[Guest Adrian]

Re: no keyboard

 

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using

> select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without

> keyboard?

>

> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

>

> parismom

 

If you start up W98 without a keyboard you get an error warning from BIOS

don't you? Have you by any chance found a way around that? I would be keen

to know. I don't have answer to your question, except maybe, to use a

bat-file if what you want to do is the same each time.

 

Adrian.

[Guest Ingeborg]

Re: no keyboard

 

=?Utf-8?B?cGFyaXNtb20=?= wrote:

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides

> using select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows

> without keyboard?

 

I suppose you need the Ctrl key? Maybe you can use an onscreen virtual

keyboard?

<http://www.lakefolks.org/cnt/>

[Guest dadiOH]

Re: no keyboard

 

parismom wrote:

> how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides

> using select all. any urls that have suggestions on running

> windows without keyboard?

>

> thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

>

> parismom

 

Assuming you can see/navigate to them in Explorer, hold down either

mouse button and drag a "box" around them. They have to be adjacent

to each other to do this; that is, you can't select some AND more that

are not adjacent at the same time.

 

--

 

dadiOH

____________________________

 

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[Guest MEB]

Re: no keyboard

 

 

 

"parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...

| how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides using

| select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without

| keyboard?

|

| thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

|

| parismom

 

Hmm, you might find an application designed around *Accessibility* [for

handicapped individuals]. Windows has some basic hooks for such.

I would imagine that the more sophisticated programs are likely designed

for newer operating systems though.

 

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

[Guest MEB]

Re: no keyboard

 

 

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uUVtvBv9HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

|

|

| "parismom" <parismom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

| news:1C3296A9-76D2-45DF-91DC-E8587C2F4C56@microsoft.com...

| | how can i select multiple individual files with mouse only, besides

using

| | select all. any urls that have suggestions on running windows without

| | keyboard?

| |

| | thanks. this is an odd question, i know.

| |

| | parismom

|

| Hmm, you might find an application designed around *Accessibility* [for

| handicapped individuals]. Windows has some basic hooks for such.

| I would imagine that the more sophisticated programs are likely designed

| for newer operating systems though.

|

| --

| MEB

| ________

|

|

|

 

Opps, should have indicated you could also assign one of the mouse buttons

[do you have a three button mouse] as the CTRL key, and hold it as you mouse

the other files necessary with the standard left click.

 

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: no keyboard

 

Don Phillipson wrote:

> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> MS-DOS which requires a KB

 

What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

MS-DOS" ?

[Guest Dan]

Re: no keyboard

 

My thought is that there is true DOS within Windows 98/98SE because it is

part of the 9x consumer line of operating systems that ended with Windows ME

that was a failure. The joke was within Windows NT (New Technology) that

early Microsoft engineers called it the Not There code since it lacked a true

maintenance operating system. The NT line was the business line of source

code and apparently from what I have learned is that Microsoft wanted to save

money by having only one line of source code so they worked on bringing

everyone to XP and tried to make XP as consumer friendly as 98SE but I think

Microsoft has failed in this task. The problem is that many older games and

educational programs will run in 98 Second Edition but do not run in XP or

Vista. Thus because of the lack of a maintenance operating system, you know

have people like Chris Quirke, MVP that is working on having Linux be the

underlying operating system for Vista. You can see Chris Quirke's 3rd blog

for details about how he plans to accomplish this feat.

 

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Don Phillipson wrote:

>

> > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > MS-DOS which requires a KB

>

> What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

> MS-DOS" ?

>

[Guest Dan]

Re: no keyboard

 

I should have added underlying maintenance operating system that Chris

Quirke, MVP is working on for Vista.

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: no keyboard

 

98 Guy wrote:

> Don Phillipson wrote:

>

> > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > MS-DOS which requires a KB

>

> What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

> atop MS-DOS" ?

 

Still waiting for you to respond Don.

 

I see you're participating in the "CD Player Questions" thread. Come

on back and finish this one.

[Guest Tim Slattery]

Re: no keyboard

 

98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>Don Phillipson wrote:

>

>> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

>> MS-DOS which requires a KB

>

>What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

>MS-DOS" ?

 

When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first thing

that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place, the Windows

system is launched from DOS.

 

Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you

write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and call

the appropriate DOS I/O routine. Of course, it does for itself many

things that DOS doesn't do: allow protected-mode programs and virtual

memory, handle LOTS more than 1MB RAM, allow many programs to run at

once, etc.

 

--

Tim Slattery

MS MVP(DTS)

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

[Guest Dan]

Re: no keyboard

 

test reply to 98 Guy Can you see my posts?

 

"98 Guy" wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:

>

> > Don Phillipson wrote:

> >

> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB

> >

> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

> > atop MS-DOS" ?

>

> Still waiting for you to respond Don.

>

> I see you're participating in the "CD Player Questions" thread. Come

> on back and finish this one.

>

[Guest Dan]

Re: no keyboard

 

Thank you Tim for your explaination. I really appreciate it. Have a great

week.

 

"Tim Slattery" wrote:

> 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>

> >Don Phillipson wrote:

> >

> >> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> >> MS-DOS which requires a KB

> >

> >What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

> >MS-DOS" ?

>

> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first thing

> that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place, the Windows

> system is launched from DOS.

>

> Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you

> write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and call

> the appropriate DOS I/O routine. Of course, it does for itself many

> things that DOS doesn't do: allow protected-mode programs and virtual

> memory, handle LOTS more than 1MB RAM, allow many programs to run at

> once, etc.

>

> --

> Tim Slattery

> MS MVP(DTS)

> Slattery_T@bls.gov

> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

>

[Guest 98 Guy]

Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re:no keyboard)

 

Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re:no keyboard)

 

Tim Slattery wrote:

> > Don Phillipson wrote:

> >

> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB

> >

> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

> > atop MS-DOS" ?

 

Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own

explanation?

> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first

> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,

> the Windows system is launched from DOS.

 

Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in

the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)

to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended

memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk

access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a

system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.

> Windows 9x uses some of the DOS facilities. For example, when you

> write to or read from a disk, it will thunk into 16-bit mode and

> call the appropriate DOS I/O routine.

 

Actually, if win-98's protected mode 32-bit driver is not loaded,

win-98 will resort to DOS-compatibility mode drive access. But that

is not the normal working mode for win-98 with appropriate hardware

drivers installed. Specifically ESDI_506.PDR (in the case of

hard-drive access). I believe that DOS is limited to 16-bit, I/O hard

drive access (and not UDMA access that win-98 uses or can make use

of).

 

Just because a win-9x system has all of the necessary boot and system

files to enable it to be "started in MS-DOS mode" does not mean it

uses them as a base when operating in Windows (32-bit protected)

mode. DOS has very few internal functions when compared to Win-9x,

and many of them have been replicated in 32-bit mode for windows

operation. Also, I think that many people confuse (or link) FAT-32

with DOS, and hence equate those two with Win-9x for that reason (ie -

DOS uses FAT-32, Win-98 uses FAT-32, hence Win-98 must be just an

enhancement running "on top of" DOS). Note that you won't get long

file name support when running in pure DOS mode (another example that

there are fundamental differences between DOS and Win-98).

[Guest Dan]

RE: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

RE: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

 

 

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Tim Slattery wrote:

>

> > > Don Phillipson wrote:

> > >

> > > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > > > MS-DOS which requires a KB

> > >

> > > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

> > > atop MS-DOS" ?

>

> Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own

> explanation?

>

Thanks for your explanation 98 Guy. My guess is Don Phillipson doesn't want

to reply with an explanation because Don has already given the best

explanation Don can give and I will think that unless Don decides to post

here again. I would just let it go and not worry about it. Have a great

rest of the week and I hope you, 98 Guy and MEB are not still arguing over

different things. I am actually wondering if you removed yourself from

seeing my posts because I got so irrational when everything was happening all

at once and it seemed like a soap opera to me. I am much better now because

the doctor's have found the correct dose of thyroid medicine that I need to

take and it is amazing how one small pill which is a hormone can make all the

difference in the world.

[Guest Franc Zabkar]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:57:05 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

keyboard and composed:

>Tim Slattery wrote:

>

>> > Don Phillipson wrote:

>> >

>> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

>> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB

>> >

>> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

>> > atop MS-DOS" ?

>

>Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own

>explanation?

>

>> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first

>> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,

>> the Windows system is launched from DOS.

>

>Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in

>the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)

>to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended

>memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk

>access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a

>system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.

 

I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

 

BootGUI=0

 

This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can choose

to launch win.com.

 

I find this technique useful because I can automate some housekeeping

tasks after Windows terminates.

 

My autoexec.bat looks like this:

 

<code that executes before GUI starts>

choice /c:WD /n /t:W,3 Boot to (W)indows or (D)OS?

if errorlevel 2 goto end

win.com

<code that executes after GUI terminates>

:end

 

If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS mode.

If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real DOS mode

when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support Don's original

statement?

 

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

>

> BootGUI=0

>

> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can

> choose to launch win.com.

>

> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS

> mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real

> DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support

> Don's original statement?

 

That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you

could say that "XP is built atop win-98".

 

You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with

your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during

startup and selecting "command-prompt only".

 

Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to

boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I

have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well

guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has

XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"

doesn't it?

 

Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and

*startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them

or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos

functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.

 

It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot

DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,

32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a

single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).

[Guest Dan]

What is considered Real DOS?

 

What is considered Real DOS?

 

I guess the question to ask is what is considered real DOS. I read for what

it is worth in Wikipedia which I know is not always reliable that the

emulated DOS used nowadays in Windows NT (eg. XP/Vista) is based upon DOS 5.

In my 486 I have Windows 3.1 and DOS 5 so I guess that could be considered

real dos. The problem is when is dos not considered real anymore. Does it

end after dos 5 because this is apparently what is emulated or does dos

continue to latest version of dos which is 6.x or can one reasonably concede

that the dos in Windows 95.x, 98, 98 Second Edition are still all true dos

but just less functional because some options have been removed but you must

consider enhancements also like Fat32 which is supported in 98SE --- not sure

about how many other 9x versions Fat32 is supported in. Anyway, would

someone consider Windows ME true dos since it removes easy access to dos by

not letting one easily start up in dos without a floppy disk and I think it

removes functions like the autoexec.bat. The other question I really wonder

was it done on purpose that Windows ME was made poorly enough to help

encourage users to switch to Windows NT (Windows XP) in this case or was it

all truly a big mistake on Microsoft part. I know from reading that

Microsoft did want to eliminate 9x consumer source code to save money but if

one thinks about it --- this has made it so much easier for Microsoft

products to be hacked because crackers only have to focus on the NT business

source code. In addition, the added services of NT provide a wider surface

area for crackers. Finally, XP and Vista lack the kind of maintenance

operating system that dos had. Thankfully, Chris Quirke, MVP is experienting

on having a flavor of Linux used as the maintenance operating system for

Vista. In the mean while, it seems like many users are being served by

switching to Apple and/or Linux much to in my guess, Microsoft's annoyance.

The Mozilla Browser also has become very popular due to the many security

vulnerabilites of Internet Explorer. You can just check out this website and

research any software to find out its weaknesses. Even Apple 10.x has

security vulnerabilities such as DOS (Denial of Service) and priviledge

escalation errors currently but these pale in comparison to Windows XP

Professional/Home vulnerabilities and Internet Explorer 6/7 are both in

fairly bad shape also.

 

http://secunia.com/

 

You can just research all these products yourself from the search box in the

top right side of the page.

 

"Franc Zabkar" wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:57:05 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

> keyboard and composed:

>

> >Tim Slattery wrote:

> >

> >> > Don Phillipson wrote:

> >> >

> >> > > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> >> > > MS-DOS which requires a KB

> >> >

> >> > What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built

> >> > atop MS-DOS" ?

> >

> >Is there some reason why Don Phillipson doesn't respond with his own

> >explanation?

> >

> >> When you start up a Win98 (or any Win9x) computer, the first

> >> thing that happens is that DOS is started. Once that's in place,

> >> the Windows system is launched from DOS.

> >

> >Windows 98 switches the processor into 32-bit protected mode early in

> >the boot process, and must use a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface)

> >to allow DOS programs to run in protected mode and to access extended

> >memory under a multitasking operating system like Windows 9x. Disk

> >access is performed using 32-bit protected mode drivers - unlike a

> >system that has booted (and remains running in) pure DOS.

>

> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

>

> BootGUI=0

>

> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can choose

> to launch win.com.

>

> I find this technique useful because I can automate some housekeeping

> tasks after Windows terminates.

>

> My autoexec.bat looks like this:

>

> <code that executes before GUI starts>

> choice /c:WD /n /t:W,3 Boot to (W)indows or (D)OS?

> if errorlevel 2 goto end

> win.com

> <code that executes after GUI terminates>

> :end

>

> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS mode.

> If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real DOS mode

> when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support Don's original

> statement?

>

> - Franc Zabkar

> --

> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

>

[Guest Dan]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to t

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to t

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98

 

"Windows 98 is a hybrid 16/32-bit operating system. It has quite low system

requirements; therefore it can gain full potential even on older machines.

 

The graphical user interface (GUI) runs on a DOS-based layer. This is

partially an advantage and disadvantage. DOS has some limits (such as the

number of disk buffers or simultaneously opened files), but through its

environment memory managers, drivers or other applications can be loaded

which can improve overall system performance and functionality.

 

Windows 98 also offers full support for DOS applications in the form of

being able to boot in "DOS Mode" (MS-DOS can be booted without booting

Windows or putting the CPU in protected mode). This differs from the

emulation used in Windows NT-based operating systems in that the latter

cannot handle devices such as modem or LAN cards which are required for some

DOS applications.

 

Since DOS programs provide their own device drivers, some DOS programs, such

as those that require a Sound Blaster compatible sound card, cannot run on

newer computers without Windows (which provides Sound Blaster emulation in

some sound card drivers)."

 

I think the Wikipedia site explains the operating system fairly well but

please feel free to further discuss the issue there and please help them

update the site with your vast knowledge of the Windows 98 operating system,

98 Guy because this will be helpful to everyone.

 

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Franc Zabkar wrote:

>

> > I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

> >

> > BootGUI=0

> >

> > This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can

> > choose to launch win.com.

> >

> > If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS

> > mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real

> > DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support

> > Don's original statement?

>

> That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you

> could say that "XP is built atop win-98".

>

> You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with

> your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during

> startup and selecting "command-prompt only".

>

> Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to

> boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I

> have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well

> guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has

> XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"

> doesn't it?

>

> Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and

> *startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them

> or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos

> functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.

>

> It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot

> DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,

> 32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a

> single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).

>

[Guest Franc Zabkar]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:59:48 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to

keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:

>

>> I have added the following line to my msdos.sys file:

>>

>> BootGUI=0

>>

>> This forces my machine to boot to DOS, after which I can

>> choose to launch win.com.

>>

>> If win.com is not executed, then the machine boots into real DOS

>> mode. If win.com *is* executed, then the machine returns to real

>> DOS mode when the GUI terminates. Doesn't this behaviour support

>> Don's original statement?

>

>That's like saying if I have a dual-boot sysem (98 and XP) that you

>could say that "XP is built atop win-98".

>

>You are forcing your system to default into starting in DOS mode with

>your BootGUI=0 setting. I can do the same thing by pressing F8 during

>startup and selecting "command-prompt only".

>

>Another example: If I have an XP system, with the boot order set to

>boot from the floppy drive first, then the hard drive second. If I

>have a DOS boot floppy in the drive while the system is starting, well

>guess what - the system starts and remains in DOS. But the system has

>XP installed on it - that must mean that XP is "built atop of MS-DOS"

>doesn't it?

 

I don't see that as a valid analogy.

>Again, just because all the DOS system files are *present* and

>*startable* on a win-98 system doesn't mean that win-98 relies on them

>or their internal functions. Win-98 has replicated many of the dos

>functions (and added MANY more) with 32-bit code.

 

Yes, I understand that. I didn't mean to imply that Windows *relies*

on DOS, or BIOS for that matter, once it is up and running.

>It's more correct to think of a win-98 system as a dual-boot

>DOS/Windows system, rather than thinking that Win-98 (a multi-tasking,

>32-bit protected mode operating system) is "running atop" DOS (a

>single-tasking, real-mode, 16-bit OS).

 

In my example I have a DOS batch file, autoexec.bat, which calls

win.com. When the GUI terminates, the system resumes executing

autoexec.bat. Doesn't this prove that DOS is "idling" in the

background? Isn't win.com just another task?

 

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this:

 

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> In my example I have a DOS batch file, autoexec.bat, which calls

> win.com. When the GUI terminates, the system resumes executing

> autoexec.bat. Doesn't this prove that DOS is "idling" in the

> background? Isn't win.com just another task?

 

DOS is written in 16-bit machine code and is a single-tasking

operating system that runs on x86 CPU's that operate in real or

standard mode.

 

Windows 9x (as well as some aspects of Win-3x) is written in 32-bit

code and switch the CPU into protected mode, which is a very important

difference and has many ramifications as to how memory is managed and

accessed.

 

This link details some of the items being discussed:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

 

Under the heading "Technical Notes on MS-DOS Components in Windows 98"

we have the following:

 

-----------------------------

Many users have wondered whether Windows 98 contains MS-DOS code

and, if so, whether that means that Windows 98 is somehow built

on top of MS-DOS. Many of these questions relate to how Windows

98 achieves the highest possible degree of compatibility with

existing devices and applications created for MS-DOS and Windows

3.x. Three key questions are answered here:

 

1) How does Windows 98 support internal processes and certain

application services?

 

2) How does Windows 98 reclaim memory from real-mode drivers?

 

3) Why does Io.sys load Win.com rather than directly loading

Vmm32.vxd?

 

The following services were written for Windows 95 and Windows 98,

and are not revisions to MS-DOS code:

 

- Process and thread memory management.

- Interprocess communications and synchronization.

- Preemptive Win32 subsystem.

- CD-ROM, hard disk, and network input/output (I/O) services.

- High-level graphics operations and window management.

- Printing services.

 

Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although

the code itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode.

Functions implemented in this manner ensure backward compatibility

with existing real-mode software, such as the Novell NetWare

client. The following list shows such functions:

 

Create Program Segment Prefix (function 55h)

Get MS-DOS Version (function 30h)

Create Temp File (function 5Ah)

International (function 65h)

Dup File Handle (function 45h)

Set/Get Drive (functions 0Eh and 19h)

Exit (function 4Ch)

Set/Get Program Segment Prefix (functions 50h and 51h)

Get Date/Time (functions 2Ah and 2Ch)

NetWare Get Station Num (function DCh)

-----------------------------------

 

So basically, Win-9x keeps at least one copy of DOS running in it's

own virtual environment just to be able to handle the above function

calls in case the user is running any legacy 16-bit DOS/Windows (or

Netware) software. It goes on to say:

 

------------------------------------

As a final example, some users have wondered whether the fact that

Io.sys loads Win.com (rather than loading Vmm32.vxd directly) is an

indication that Windows 98 is built on Windows 3.x code, with the

addition of new VxDs. Actually, Io.sys is used to load Win.com only

to ensure backward compatibility. Certain real-mode drivers and

terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) programs insert themselves at

various places in the Windows 3.1 startup process. If Windows 98

were to bypass the loading of Win.com and instead load VxDs

directly,

any driver that needs to insert itself when Win.com is loaded would

never be called. Instead, Windows 98 starts in precisely the same

way as Windows 3.1 and loads the same components in the same order,

ensuring compatibility with earlier versions of applications and

device drivers.

--------------------------------------

 

Command.com and Io.sys are needed during the early stages of the boot

process when the BIOS passes control to the boot device. Io.sys is

the system boot loader. It takes control from the BIOS and transfers

it to Win98 via Win.com. Io.sys uses Msdos.sys to locate information

needed during the boot process (like the location of the main Windows

files). Win.com is the real-mode "stub" used to start Windows.

Win.com and Vmm32.vxd essentially launch the system into protected

mode.

 

Dan wrote in a recent post:

> The graphical user interface (GUI) runs on a DOS-based layer.

 

I don't know where he got that from, but it's completely false. When

windows 9x is running, it's running in 32-bit protected mode. DOS has

absolutely no idea about the functionality of that mode - it can't

operate in that mode nor can it launch applications into that mode -

let alone the entire windows OS. All hardware drivers are operating

in 32-bit protected mode. It is absurd to claim that such

functionality is happening in a "DOS-based" layer.

 

Again - Win-9x does run an instance of DOS in a (hidden?) virtual

environment, but only to handle a paltry few functions. That is a far

cry from saying that Windows 9x is "built atop DOS".

 

Note also this:

 

-------------------------

MS-DOS Mode and Performance

 

Do not assume that running an MS-DOS-based application in MS-DOS

mode provides better performance. When an application runs in MS-

DOS mode, Windows 98 and all of its protected-mode drivers are

unloaded, so the application is running in real mode with exclusive

use of the computer's resources.

 

Although this might help with a few applications that otherwise

cannot run under Windows 98, it does not benefit performance

overall,

because the application does not get the benefit of protected-mode

drivers, VCACHE, 32-bit disk access, and so on. Also, real-mode

device drivers must be loaded, reducing the amount of conventional

memory available to the application.

---------------------------

 

This link provides some insight into the differences between win-3x,

win-9x and NT/2K:

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0700/hood/

 

If I'm not mistaken, the reason for the 2 gb (real) memory limitation

for win-98 can be found there as well - if you read between the lines.

[Guest Dan]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to t

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to t

 

Well, if I made a mistake, I will thank you for the correction. I think you

should be the one to help Microsoft put out a new 9x consumer operating

system since you have this down. It would be a great help to our schools to

run older programs like Space for Windows 3.1 that is not able to run in XP

or Vista and it would also be helpful to consumers who want to run their old

MS-DOS games well and with complete compatibility.

 

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Franc Zabkar wrote:

>

> > In my example I have a DOS batch file, autoexec.bat, which calls

> > win.com. When the GUI terminates, the system resumes executing

> > autoexec.bat. Doesn't this prove that DOS is "idling" in the

> > background? Isn't win.com just another task?

>

> DOS is written in 16-bit machine code and is a single-tasking

> operating system that runs on x86 CPU's that operate in real or

> standard mode.

>

> Windows 9x (as well as some aspects of Win-3x) is written in 32-bit

> code and switch the CPU into protected mode, which is a very important

> difference and has many ramifications as to how memory is managed and

> accessed.

>

> This link details some of the items being discussed:

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

>

> Under the heading "Technical Notes on MS-DOS Components in Windows 98"

> we have the following:

>

> -----------------------------

> Many users have wondered whether Windows 98 contains MS-DOS code

> and, if so, whether that means that Windows 98 is somehow built

> on top of MS-DOS. Many of these questions relate to how Windows

> 98 achieves the highest possible degree of compatibility with

> existing devices and applications created for MS-DOS and Windows

> 3.x. Three key questions are answered here:

>

> 1) How does Windows 98 support internal processes and certain

> application services?

>

> 2) How does Windows 98 reclaim memory from real-mode drivers?

>

> 3) Why does Io.sys load Win.com rather than directly loading

> Vmm32.vxd?

>

> The following services were written for Windows 95 and Windows 98,

> and are not revisions to MS-DOS code:

>

> - Process and thread memory management.

> - Interprocess communications and synchronization.

> - Preemptive Win32 subsystem.

> - CD-ROM, hard disk, and network input/output (I/O) services.

> - High-level graphics operations and window management.

> - Printing services.

>

> Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although

> the code itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode.

> Functions implemented in this manner ensure backward compatibility

> with existing real-mode software, such as the Novell NetWare

> client. The following list shows such functions:

>

> Create Program Segment Prefix (function 55h)

> Get MS-DOS Version (function 30h)

> Create Temp File (function 5Ah)

> International (function 65h)

> Dup File Handle (function 45h)

> Set/Get Drive (functions 0Eh and 19h)

> Exit (function 4Ch)

> Set/Get Program Segment Prefix (functions 50h and 51h)

> Get Date/Time (functions 2Ah and 2Ch)

> NetWare Get Station Num (function DCh)

> -----------------------------------

>

> So basically, Win-9x keeps at least one copy of DOS running in it's

> own virtual environment just to be able to handle the above function

> calls in case the user is running any legacy 16-bit DOS/Windows (or

> Netware) software. It goes on to say:

>

> ------------------------------------

> As a final example, some users have wondered whether the fact that

> Io.sys loads Win.com (rather than loading Vmm32.vxd directly) is an

> indication that Windows 98 is built on Windows 3.x code, with the

> addition of new VxDs. Actually, Io.sys is used to load Win.com only

> to ensure backward compatibility. Certain real-mode drivers and

> terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) programs insert themselves at

> various places in the Windows 3.1 startup process. If Windows 98

> were to bypass the loading of Win.com and instead load VxDs

> directly,

> any driver that needs to insert itself when Win.com is loaded would

> never be called. Instead, Windows 98 starts in precisely the same

> way as Windows 3.1 and loads the same components in the same order,

> ensuring compatibility with earlier versions of applications and

> device drivers.

> --------------------------------------

>

> Command.com and Io.sys are needed during the early stages of the boot

> process when the BIOS passes control to the boot device. Io.sys is

> the system boot loader. It takes control from the BIOS and transfers

> it to Win98 via Win.com. Io.sys uses Msdos.sys to locate information

> needed during the boot process (like the location of the main Windows

> files). Win.com is the real-mode "stub" used to start Windows.

> Win.com and Vmm32.vxd essentially launch the system into protected

> mode.

>

> Dan wrote in a recent post:

>

> > The graphical user interface (GUI) runs on a DOS-based layer.

>

> I don't know where he got that from, but it's completely false. When

> windows 9x is running, it's running in 32-bit protected mode. DOS has

> absolutely no idea about the functionality of that mode - it can't

> operate in that mode nor can it launch applications into that mode -

> let alone the entire windows OS. All hardware drivers are operating

> in 32-bit protected mode. It is absurd to claim that such

> functionality is happening in a "DOS-based" layer.

>

> Again - Win-9x does run an instance of DOS in a (hidden?) virtual

> environment, but only to handle a paltry few functions. That is a far

> cry from saying that Windows 9x is "built atop DOS".

>

> Note also this:

>

> -------------------------

> MS-DOS Mode and Performance

>

> Do not assume that running an MS-DOS-based application in MS-DOS

> mode provides better performance. When an application runs in MS-

> DOS mode, Windows 98 and all of its protected-mode drivers are

> unloaded, so the application is running in real mode with exclusive

> use of the computer's resources.

>

> Although this might help with a few applications that otherwise

> cannot run under Windows 98, it does not benefit performance

> overall,

> because the application does not get the benefit of protected-mode

> drivers, VCACHE, 32-bit disk access, and so on. Also, real-mode

> device drivers must be loaded, reducing the amount of conventional

> memory available to the application.

> ---------------------------

>

> This link provides some insight into the differences between win-3x,

> win-9x and NT/2K:

>

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0700/hood/

>

> If I'm not mistaken, the reason for the 2 gb (real) memory limitation

> for win-98 can be found there as well - if you read between the lines.

>

[Guest Tim Slattery]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (to this: Re: no keyboard)

 

98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>DOS is written in 16-bit machine code and is a single-tasking

>operating system that runs on x86 CPU's that operate in real or

>standard mode.

 

Minor nit-pick: I expect it was written mostly in C, with some

assembler in places. Writing directly in machine language was dropped

when the first assembler appeared, and that happened very early on.

Actual machine code would be *extremely* brittle in the first place,

and it would be nearly impossible to keep track of what you were doing

for any period of time. You'd go nuts within a week.

>Windows 9x (as well as some aspects of Win-3x) is written in 32-bit

>code and switch the CPU into protected mode, which is a very important

>difference and has many ramifications as to how memory is managed and

>accessed.

 

No question there. The switch to protected mode enabled the system to

make use of more than 1MB of RAM. Win3.x was written to the 286's

memory model: still using 64KB segments, but a maximum of 16MB is

usable. Win3.x used a 386 facility to allow for multiple DOS boxes

(Virtual x86 mode). The Win32 model used in Win9x, and the entire

WinNT family (including Win2K, WinXP, and Vista), allows a single,

flat 4GB memory space, a *very* good thing for programmers! The 64-bit

systems, of course, allow a vastly larger address space. I think the

current implementations allow for 128GB.

 

--

Tim Slattery

MS MVP(DTS)

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt