DOS Applications in WindowsXP

Bushido Philosopher · Post by **Bushido Philosopher** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:44 pm

Hey , was wondering if anyone else has this problem.

When opening DOS applications a lot of them close on their own. I retry and they just keep closing themselves.

Anyone know how to remedy this problem???

Brolli411 · Post by **Brolli411** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:19 pm

Windows XP does not have DOS in it. The best solution is to get a DOS boot disc. http://www.bootdisk.com

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:28 pm

What version of Windows are you running? And have you tried launching the DOS program from a command prompt (Start/Run/cmd.exe or command.com)? That may give you some info on the problem.

With each version of Windows, DOS support gets pushed out of the way more and more. Especially in NT-based versions like Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which have more software safeguards, checks, and layers of abstraction that choke DOS programs (which were typically written to speak straight to the hardware, little to no hindrance).

Your best bet nowadays, it's starting to seem, is to get a Pentium system and install DOS or Windows 98 on it, for dedicated DOS app running

.

A DOS bootdisk may not work well on an XP system. If I recall correctly, Microsoft created a new filesystem or something for XP. And partitions with the NTFS partition cannot be seen with a Windows 98 bootdisk.

But give it a try, it won't kill anything.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:47 pm

...command.exe and run the program. Works all the time for me.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:04 am

NicholasDWolfwood wrote:...command.exe and run the program. Works all the time for me.

COMMAND.COM, not COMMAND.EXE. There really is a difference.

A COM file is actually a remnant from the old days, when DOS was CP/M. They're limited to 64K in size and they have no offset information, so they're just loaded at memory address 0x100 (IIRC; haven't done EXE research is a long while). Their headers are practically nonexistent; they're basically just raw binary data directly executable by Intel processors (or whatever CPU they were built for).

A DOS EXE is a much more complicated file, containing data necessary for relocation, a file checksum, a pointer to a stack segment for the program, and so on.

The Windows executable format (PE, Portable Executable) is a lot more complicated still, but that's not here nor there.

Bleh, I need to shut up.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:37 am

DOS was never CP/M. It borrowed CP/M concepts (and possibly a little code), but the two were exclusive OSes. Supposedly, Gary Kildall (the guy who wrote CP/M) snubbed IBM when they were shopping around for an OS for the original IBM PC, because he didn't like the contract they provided.

So IBM went to Microsoft (who mostly wrote programming languages at that time - MS BASIC was probably the Windows of the day, in terms of commonality). Microsoft said "Sure, we'll get you an OS!", and quickly bought an OS called QDOS from a Tim Patterson (for about 50 grand, I recall), who worked for a Seattle computing business. After some quick polishing, DOS as we know it was born.

DOS was pretty nice. A DOS-like UNIX would kick ass.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:44 am

It should also be noted that Digital Research, the company that made CP/M, went on to make DR-DOS. DR-DOS users got shafted by Microsoft when Windows 3.1 came out, since Microsoft added some code to the installer that checked to see what version of DOS was running. If it found DR-DOS, it displayed a nice error message and not install, even though it was compatible. Digital Research launched a lawsuit that they won after years in court, but by that time the company was kaput.

DR-DOS (formerly known as OpenDOS, and now back to DR-DOS) is apparently freely downloadable <a href="http://www.drdos.com/modules.php?op=mod ... 1">here</a>, by the way.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:56 am

kthulhu wrote:DOS was never CP/M. It borrowed CP/M concepts (and possibly a little code), but the two were exclusive OSes. Supposedly, Gary Kildall (the guy who wrote CP/M) snubbed IBM when they were shopping around for an OS for the original IBM PC, because he didn't like the contract they provided.

OK, yeah, that part I did mess up. They were two different, seperate entities.

So IBM went to Microsoft (who mostly wrote programming languages at that time - MS BASIC was probably the Windows of the day, in terms of commonality). Microsoft said "Sure, we'll get you an OS!", and quickly bought an OS called QDOS from a Tim Patterson (for about 50 grand, I recall), who worked for a Seattle computing business. After some quick polishing, DOS as we know it was born.

DOS was pretty nice. A DOS-like UNIX would kick ass.

Heh, MS BASIC. The program that started Gates' obsession with software piracy.

Also: There was Microsoft XENIX, but I don't think it was anything like DOS.

DOS and UNIX use semantics that are so different that it'd be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to make a UNIX like DOS. Some examples, which you may already know:

- UNIX treats everything as files or directories. System devices, for instance, are accessed through block device files or character device files.

- UNIX makes extensive use of symbolic linking, in which an entry on disk is made to point to another entry on disk. (No, this is not the same as a shortcut -- it is far more powerful.) There is no DOS equivalent.

- UNIX file semantics dictate that all files in the filesystem are arranged in a hierarchical directory tree, regardless of where they actually are stored. That is, there is no drive/directory system; everything is under / (root).

By the time you had those implemented, you might as well just use an existing UNIX system

Yes, you can implement some technical details of UNIX systems (e.g. output redirection, pipes, UNIX sockets, POSIX threads), but there are just some fundamental design differences that just, IMHO, prevent such a project.

Bushido Philosopher · Post by **Bushido Philosopher** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:00 am

I'm running Windows XP as stated in the subject line....that's not an emoticon...

And damn that sucks.....I want the file system so I can store things more than 4GB, but then it has this problem....dammit all.....

and the Start-Run-Command.exe thing doesn't work....it still closes.
boot disk doesnt work....

man, i'm starting to get desperate.....

Bushido Philosopher · Post by **Bushido Philosopher** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:02 am

well in any case.....people need to write more GUI's to things if XP systems do that....

i have a REALLY good way to get PS2 footage from extracting files, but of course all of those extraction apps are in DOS....hence my problem....

damn you Microsoft!!!