Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Hi,
In my side of the woods, many years ago we used to use DOS. Then we used some program that made it easier to navigate the directories through using a menu-type interface (I dont recall the name of it) Then eventually we started to use Microsoft Windows for cetain things, being that certain programs required it- but most things would still run fine (often times even better) in DOS. Then we started getting use to using a mouse and clicking our way through life. Was that 'the point of no return'?
My question for you guys is this: as of today, when would a person be using DOS besides for troubleshooting a disfunctional Windows system? Is it possible to be 100% on DOS and have full GUI access to the web and other major programs?
While personally I do not like Windows because its somewhere in between fully controlling the computer itself, and allowing the person to be in charge- The Mac GUI *is* the OS, whereas the Windows OS is merely a graphical representation of what it wants you to see... I would rather be 100% in control like in DOS or allow a GUI to be the OS, much like Mac.
Now I am not too literate in the ins and outs of how all this stuff works, but I do have practical experience with these things and this is just the way that I am seeing it...
All the best,
LarryPS- The biggest yardstick I have is the games: the earliest ones used text. Then some graphics, with arrow keys and text commands for control of the subject. Then there were much more graphical ones, but to actually *do* something (eg. in an adventure game- to pick up an object) you had to type it in. Then came games where you simply had to switch to the option you wanted on the mouse (eg. switch the pointer to a 'hand' in order to pick up the object) Then came the point where the arrows changed to what it was meant to be when it was over the ogject that was to be manipulated (eg. a 'hand' to lift and object, or a 'mouth' to talk) Basically the game was getting less and less demanding of your intelligence and effort (not a bad thing per se, but pretty much the reality of the situation. I guess that while it took away from the effort/intelligence of the player, it allowed more focus to be on the graphics and simple entertainment of it)
All in all I guess something like Windows is neccesary because any OS will naturally have to be an interface with the hardware- there can never really be a true GUI representative of the 'situation on the ground' without some sort of a 'middleman' who is there being in charge... (Windows)
Another reason I guess Windows is not easily replaceable is because they dont need to be accountable for their huge amount of code- they dont have to code efficiently because the resources of the average computer today is more than enough to handle huge amounts of inefficient/excess coding... In addition, being that the majority of todays computer users would prefer not to have to learn how a computer works etc., therefor the easier and simpler the OS, the more it would be accepted. Another point might be that in an environment where the very nature of a computer allows and is designed for swapping of information, it is therefor neccesary for some form of a common interface. So I guess whoever gets the majority, they win.
Anyway I'm sure that there are literally *millions* of articles relating to this subject, and I'm sure its all been said. This leaves me to simply add my own personal experience and thus conclusions, to the pot.
I just read something about 'Longhorn' and that seems something worth paying attention to- if the OS could be truly divided into sections with true flexibilty for a designer/programmer, then I guess that would be the ideal OS.
Basically, if you could have the actual functional part of the OS on one level, then the GUI on another (and it should be fully customizeable), and then the communicative aspect of the OS on yet a third level, this sounds pretty good. The key here is that if they insist on not releasing the source code, then they must make an 'artificial source code' fully available- a code that can be worked with which gives 100% control, albeit not altering the basic building blocks of the OS.
Anyway, I dont know if this Longhorn is any real improvement over todays Windows, but it does look like it may have good potential. Or the opposite- it might just close the grip on the 'source' even more.
Here's a link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnfoghorn/html/foghorn10272003.asp-Larry
0 
Modern versions of Windows have abandoned DOS - there is no booting to DOS-only to perform 'behind the scenes' repairs as in 3x/9x/Me normally, although on certain setups this can be accomplished from a DOS bootdisk, and there are utilities to allow access to NTFS drives.
Likely this isn't the best forum to begin a lengthy discussion of Longhorn - or Windows platforms in general - which have no bearing on DOS whatsoever.
I gather you are unfamiliar with the 'miniskirt model' of presenting information?
Long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting.
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
I guess I started off with a question and wound up with a bit more than that. The basic question I had was what one would be doing in DOS today, and whether someone could function properly in todays computer field while running DOS alone. I see that this forum is dedicated to it, so it seemed that DOS was still alive somehow...
The 'miniskirt model' doesnt work with this because, as you mentioned, this is in fact the subject for a lengthy discussion and there cannot possibly be a mini version that really gets anywhere, at least that I can think of...
Cheereo,
Larry
0
Well, yes, DOS is still viable, and people still maintain older hardware as well (20 years worth)
I remain unsure how a discussion of Windows Longhorn et al is relevant here.
The whole point of the miniskirt model is: if you can't boil it down, chances are few will read it. Maybe get a blog.
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
.. and a little relevance doesn't hurt either
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
NT$/W2K/XP/W2K3 are not based on MS DOS and there is no requirement to use MS DOS to carry out repairs etcetc..
W1.x to 3.x and 95/98/ME are all GUI's and MS DOS is still relevent.
MS DOS and compatible is still used by large institutions like Banks etcetc and embedded MoBo's are available with 80186 and 80386 CPU's.
If you are interested in MS DOS and compatible O/S then see:
http://www.mwpms.uklinux.net/index.htm
0
Very interesting- I didnt realize that you could live in the 21st century with DOS alone! But then after a second look it seems clear that these methods and programs are in the category of 'if you really must, then you can use these' and not 'sure, here's what is used in DOS'
I guess this thread might get some people upset ('this is not a Blog' etc.) so I'm satisfied with that link, it pretty much answered the original question. Though in truth I'd be interested in knowing just about how many people (home users) actually live on DOS...?
-Larry
0
Larry if you want an answer to your question then post in both the forums listed on the LINKS page at above URL.
Arachne Web Browser was written in Czechoslavakia for Eastern Bloc Countries where 28K modems were still relevent even 10 years ago.
OK DOS has limitations, but considering you can buy a basic PII 233 Base Unit and Monitor for £30, plus a Mac for around £50 with System 8.6/9 then all bases are covered.
Yes you can do everything for the price of an OEM copy of XP Home.We usually get these stupid posts in the W3.x forum, because they do not teach pre-windows in colleges. Therefore until you become convinced you will carry on using expensive bloatware.
I use Windows because I work as a Computer Consultant (M$ Partner) therefore I get all the "benefits" without the cost.
When Longhorn arrives it should be nigh impossible to repair with a DOS boot disk which is good for the future of MS DOS and compatible as a standalone O/S.
This is the end of this Diatribe and so far we have had 7 posts out of the last 8 posted (2 were removed) totally irrelevent to this Forum.
0
"""My question for you guys is this: as of today, when would a person be using DOS besides for troubleshooting a disfunctional Windows system? Is it possible to be 100% on DOS and have full GUI access to the web and other major programs?"""
As someone else said, IF you are talking about a Whendox NT bases system, which could be any of the "NT" as well as Windblows2K or X tra P utrid, no DOS allowed.
However, ANY of the older systesms, ME, 98, 95, had DOS "under it all." You CAN boot those up "in DOS" and run "pure" DOS apps in them, depending on a few things.Some reasons for doing so are most certainly troubleshooting or virus problems, but over and above that, you can find many, many small businesses that have an inventory, bookeeping, or "point of sale" system, that WHILE IT MAY BE on a Whendows box, it might just be a DOS program.
Phone systems: When I was envolved with E911 Telco systems, as well as radio/paging hardware, the 911 system we then were installing used a DOS based app to program the phone "switch." Many many Motorola, GE, Kenwood, and other commercial two-way radios are still yet in service that are programmed from a DOS program.
I'm sure we could think of others, but those are some very important ones.
0
Just another variation on the highly contentious question "why do you guys still use DOS"
Every other month some wag or pundit blunders in here and asks, so I suppose we were about due.
This post in particular is irksome in so many ways, seeing as how it is founded on ignorance, is wildly off topic, and is unnecessarily long winded. The attempted snide rejoinder doesn't help matters
The corollory to the miniskirt model is the KISS standard - if you want to write a book, go ahead (somewhere else). If you want a podium to share your "deep thoughts", blogging may well be the answer.
Perhaps we should petition the webmaster to change the name and focus of this forum from "DOS" to "Miscellaneous Musings" since it is rapidly becoming the repository for all sorts of random questions and credos
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
jboy quite eloquenly put and as stated 7 posts out of the last 8 posted (2 were removed)were irrelevent to this Forum.
I have had discussions with JW and he is of the opinion a new forum to replace W3.x/DOS would not help. I would like to see this and call it W3.x/PCDOS as this may deter the title DOS from meaning any white text on black screen. Anybody who is au fait with pre Windows 9x would understand PCDOS means MS DOS and compatibles which should cut down on the mis-posting....
0
"Ye Olde DOS Forum" (home of the 'dinosoars' [sic])
j/k - - I do believe the two forums should be combined since neither is all that active (at least, with legitimate questions) and are closely related. Whether that change would serve as a deterrent to the incessant XP "DOS" questions - I'm doubtful, but it might have some impact.
An additional description at the top of the forum page beyond the CNet standard "Below is the ... forum" wouldn't hurt, not that those are attended to overly much
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
I don't mind the misdirected posts.
I think all is needed is a short answer and a nudge in the right direction.
jboy's eloquent comments are the best.
Roger you're trying to be a purist. Most of the people have not seen and will not use a true DOS system.
0
Wow sorry people. I didnt realize I'd be touching so many nerves... I do understand that it must be very frustrating to be getting 'wrong number' posts day in and day out, but as someone just suggested the best thing would be to simply take action: either change the name of the forum or place a big warning/notice at the begining. When someone starts getting wrong number calls too often, they would probably consider tracking down where the error is coming from and try and fix it- many times it implies that their number is listed somewhere under another name or business...
Not that it will calm anyone down (Jboy doesnt need to be calmed down because he 'doesnt care' anyhow :-/) but I am truly sorry for trying to speak here as a curious human being. I now see that this is strictly a troubleshooting forum- not more and not less.
Point well taken.
Good luck 2u all
Larry
0
Just to monopolize the forum I thought to add another post. This is a simple suggestion: at the begining of this forum it should state in bold letters 'This forum is not intended for questions relating to your 'command prompt' within Windows (the black screen with white letters and a blinking curser); it is for something called DOS which is actually a full OS on its own. Please respect this rule or expect to be treated somewhat distastefully.'
And just so you dont get anyone who moves even slightly off topic in any way shape or form you might add 'Also, please keep your question short and to the point; this is NOT your private 'Blog'. Please do not dare add any comments, as they might trigger an avalanche of comments in return- something that we dont enjoy at all. We are all business here and we hope to keep it this way.'
Long live the king.
0
It is not a question of being a purist, it is just that there are so many forums more appropriate. Posting warnings have been added regards NT command prompt. It is a shame it is called the DOS forum as DOS stands for DISK OPERATING SYSTEM which actually should cover everything from Acorn RISC to Zenith DOS.
Even if JW renamed to MSDOS STANDALONE would help a lot and the posting warning could state that if you are not running a version of MSDOS or compatible without Windows then please post in the appropriate forum.
ARACHNE DOS Web Browser can access this forum, which is good for use Dinasours.
I am not a purist, but feel that having a space on the web where we can discuss MSDOS and compatible is great and something to be preserved thanks JW
@help is rarely given to those who do not wish to help themselves@
0
People mis-posting their enquiries are not hurting anyone but themselves.by not likely attracting the appropriate parties...it's only when responding to mis-postings that you encourage that behavior, IMHO...
0
Overly long posts are often deleted by the webmaster, for technical reasons related to site advertising (that much intellitxt bogs down machines) and for the simple fact that few (if any) are going to read a bloody biography, or 8 pages of log stats, as well as for copyright issues if reams of material are quoted.
Posts can also be removed if they are 'unrelated to the focus of Computing.Net' - or to the focus of the particular forum they are made in.
It's a fine line - much is left to the posters' disgression - perhaps an unrealistically optimistic approach.
Since larry's has spawned so much productive discussion, it should probably remain (if for no other reason)
Inappropriate posts are made here mainly due to Micro$oft's naming of the NT command interpreter as the 'MS-DOS Prompt' and the majority of computer users today just aren't aware of the difference, since (for them) computers began around 2001 - before that.. nothing (apparently).
While inappropriate postings are not unique to the DOS forum, there is no other forum here @Computing.Net where such (dramatically) outnumber the legitimate questions.
I do feel that more needs to be done by JW since the measures adopted over the past two years clearly are not having the desired effect - and it would be helpful indeed if all or most of the contributers here could agree on policy.
We're not all business here, just sorely vexed.
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
How about renaming the forum to
IBM Compatible DOS)not NT/W2k/Xp Command Prompt) forum?Woof
Curiosity may have killed the cat but at least the cat wasn`t bored
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
