Do you think that Windows 95, 98/SE, and Me are real operating systems, like Windows XP and the NT kernel, or actually a big program, like Windows 3.1, running on top of DOS? One can argue that Windows 9x/Me is a real OS because it hides the booting process of DOS and disables some DOS commands from running in real-time. Plus, it is upgradeable to Windows XP (98/Me only), unlike Windows 3.1, and has full 32-bit support, again unlike Windows 3.1. Yet, others argue that, like Windows 3.1, Windows 9x/Me run on top of DOS--boots from DOS, loads on top of DOS, and shuts down on DOS, and like Windows 3.1, is completely dependant on the underlying DOS kernel--if DOS got removed or destroyed, the OS would no longer run. Plus, Windows 9x/Me runs from WIN.COM and HIMEM.SYS just like Windows 3.1--so in actuality, even if Windows 9x/Me is significantly bigger than Windows 3.1, has more driver support, and runs more programs, it's still dependant on DOS, and runs like one big program/shell that performs commands and corresponds with DOS, but simply hides the process. Thoughts? Rants? Raves? Let this be our intellecual playground for this subject. ;) Oh, and another thing--why is 98/Me upgradeable to XP, during 95 isn't? What is the big difference/hinder that prevents Windows 95 from being able to upgrade to XP? -Andrew

W1x to 9x/ME are GUI on top of MS-DOS (aka QDOS {CP/M86}) O/S NT Family was based on OS/2 and was compiled as a intergrated GUI and Kernel O/S Linuxes are GUI on top of *NIX O/S MAC OS & OSX is slightly different but would consider it to be an intregrated O/S though both based on a *NIX variant. 'Oh, and another thing--why is 98/Me upgradeable to XP, during 95 isn't? What is the big difference/hinder that prevents Windows 95 from being able to upgrade to XP?' Theorretically even W3.x could be upgraded, it is down to how the software is written.

Plain and Simple: If even 3.1 can be upgraded, why won't XP allow it? -Andrew

As said it is down to the way the software has been written, that is a question for MicroShaft !

"Yet, others argue that, like Windows 3.1, Windows 9x/Me run on top of DOS" Not any more they don't - that horse was beaten to death here *years* ago - although I suppose for some it's a fresh concept... {yawns} Resist the temptation to close your request for help with semantically-null questions like “Can anyone help me?”

When Vista appears in a year it will only be upgradable from W2K and later so MS-DOS 16bit subsystem compatibility will dissappear. They will be so old as to be forgotten by M$, hence why they will not throw resources at antiquated 30 year old based O/Ses. Even W9x/ME upgrade to XP does not always work.

jboy some people like to get hooked on old dead and buried O/Ses, sorry it sent you to sleep, I think he was trying to work out why MS-DOS is so different to OS/2 families?