«

[Rogue]

abandoned? :nuts:

[Eagle of Fire]

Well, that is certainly the point. DOS 7.0 (the one used in Windows) is a really dumbed down version of the "real" DOS. There is not even a third of all the commands you would find in the "real" DOS, and thus it is incomplete.

I've found plenty of games which simply refused to run in the WIN DOS of my version of '98 SE without heavy changes to the config.sys and the autoexec.bat. Changes which were common place in a normal installation of the "real" DOS.

WIN DOS also introduced the "improvement" on the extended DOS name files, such as testfi~1.exe... Which is not much of an improvement in itself as long as DOS is concerned. It was simply a way Microsoft devised to go around the problem without taking time to actually fix it...

[dosraider]

Somehow it always amazes me that people expect Windows to be dosgaming compliant.
It's Windows, not Dos.

When I ditched my 19 year old corolla, I didn't expect my winter tires to fit on my new(er) model.
You could also asking WPDos to run on Vista.
It's quite simple, if you want Dos, run a Dos PC or an emulator/VM.

A more valid argument -(MAYBE)- would be expecting MS to provide a program a la dosbox that could run those dosprograms.
Oh wait, they did, VPC.
And they even made it freeware now.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

Well, that is certainly the point. DOS 7.0 (the one used in Windows) is a really dumbed down version of the "real" DOS. There is not even a third of all the commands you would find in the "real" DOS, and thus it is incomplete.

Commands that you don't need to run DOS games, yes, they are missing. But why would you need obsolete DOS commands, as that was just the part of OS, not of the games them self.

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

I've found plenty of games which simply refused to run in the WIN DOS of my version of '98 SE without heavy changes to the config.sys and the autoexec.bat. Changes which were common place in a normal installation of the "real" DOS.

You apparently have forgot boot disks and other ways people had to change their DOS 6.22 in the order to support different games. In the order to utilize memory available for the game to start, you had to disable all unneeded startup programs. I used menu sistem where you have to select if you like to have extended memory (2 sizes), CD driver load (that took a lot of memory), etc. Win98SE made this much easier with shortcuts, so instead of creating hell of the main autoexec.bat/config.sys you could create shortcut which will run DOS startup you need. (I ended having 2 of these for games from abandonia)

If there are still topics from old abandonia, there should be topic with instructions of how to do this. I couldn't find a single game on abandonia that didn't work with my setup.

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

WIN DOS also introduced the "improvement" on the extended DOS name files, such as testfi~1.exe... Which is not much of an improvement in itself as long as DOS is concerned. It was simply a way Microsoft devised to go around the problem without taking time to actually fix it...

Win9X fixed the problem of short file names, and it's version of DOS supported both, long and short file names. Ideal for back compatibility and IMHO one of the good solution.

I'm not sure how much you remember DOS 6.22, but if you tried to name 2 files this_is_long_name.txt and this_is_long_name_2.txt, OS will tell you that you are trying to overwrite first file, even names are different. They fixed that with introduction of long file names in DOS 7.0.

Win9X solved many problems like that, but people are not aware about those fixes. Also complaining that there is not the same number of commands does not make any sense. You can use Windows for all file working and system settings, while DOS operates just as it should.

Try to find that topic about shortcuts in Win98SE. It was about 2-3 years ago. It will help you use Win9X the best (and correct) way.

[Eagle of Fire]

Somehow it always amazes me that people expect Windows to be dosgaming compliant.
It's Windows, not Dos.

It will help you use Win9X the best (and correct) way.

What amaze me is when people who have no clue of what they are talking about start giving me tips and tricks.

I used the Windows version since Win 3.0. I do not need help "understanding" how it works. I learned it all by myself back in the day when I needed to know, just like I did with XP when it got out. I certainly could not explain to your the inner working, but I know the general idea very well.

What I find amazing is that some people used to use Win 3.0 and Win 3.11 for gaming. That's probably what amaze me the most when Windows versions are concerned. To be frank, it really amaze me that people used Windows 3.0 and 3.11 willingly for anything. Man, was that a piece of crap...

What amaze me is that people don't understand anymore that DOS was still strong and commonplace in the time of Win95, and dying but still commonplace in the time of Win98. That's why people expected Win95 and Win98 to be compatible with DOS, which were not unless you were willing to spend a long time fiddling with advanced DOS tricks next to nobody knew. That's also pretty much why DOS died... What also amaze me is that peopple don't realise that in the Win95 and early Win98 era, all big production games were produced with both Windows and DOS startups to make sure the game would run on a greater range of systems. C&C and Fallout are great examples.

So please, drop the "It amaze me when I see people expect their programs to be DOS compliant" argument... It was very well valid in the time of Windows 95 and 98. What is amazing is that it never really got fixed, but it is pretty obvious at the time that Microsoft wanted to kill DOS in favor to their new white horse which was Windows. They knew where the big bucks were, and the big bucks were to move toward the masses, not to aim for those computer geeks who were way less numerous and picked their programs and hardware very carefully.

The reason why people wants their modern gaming computer to be compatible with old games is part nostalgia, part because old games tend to be way better in general in comparison to new games. For several reasons which would be way off topic to discuss in great lenght here... But that is why VDMSound and DOSBox were created. I think we can all thank the Gods of gaming that those projects were open source... Otherwise we would either have no compatibility whatsoever and those games would be lost to memories, or we would need to pay to get access to those programs.

Commands that you don't need to run DOS games, yes, they are missing. But why would you need obsolete DOS commands, as that was just the part of OS, not of the games them self.

I do not know of obsolete DOS commands. They all were used for a reason in DOS. Anyhow, there is no point in arguing that the WIN DOS was a dumbed down version of the "real" DOS, stipped down to it's minimum core. About any tech who know their salt will tell you the same thing, and I never heard otherwise to be frank. Most techs didn't even care that there was some DOS available in Windows either, to be frank...

You apparently have forgot boot disks

No, I didn't. I simply thought that the subject of the conversation was the role of MS-DOS in Win95. A boot disk is a completely different OS to me. I remember I used bootdisks back in the days for the most troublesome games.

If there are still topics from old abandonia, there should be topic with instructions of how to do this.

Yes, there is.

I'm not sure how much you remember DOS 6.22, but if you tried to name 2 files this_is_long_name.txt and this_is_long_name_2.txt, OS will tell you that you are trying to overwrite first file, even names are different. They fixed that with introduction of long file names in DOS 7.0.

That's why you never named your files longer than 8 characters with 3 extra character for the extention in DOS? That's the most basic thing to know... DOS users never had a use for extended names and as far as I know, it was a Microsoft Windows "improvement". DOS never tryied to actually do that but had no choice to comply with other programs who did or tryied to do it. Maybe Norton Commander, which for a reason I really didn't understand was extremely popular back in the DOS days, tryied too... But as you may guess, I never had a problem cruising around directories in DOS and never used my own version of Norton Commander I downloaded from a BBS to try out...

[Rogue]

Sorry, but I don't see a point that you're trying to make, except that you are DOS, windows 3.x, windows 9X and XP expert from the usage without even knowing how the stuff works. But that does not stop you to assume that DOS in Win98 was just stripped down version of original DOS, even if everything else tells different.

And just for your info, boot disks were nothing different then other DOS configuration. Remember what DOS abbreviation is for??

And Microsoft didn't kill the DOS, but gaming companies which moved to windows and something called directX, which made their life much easier.

Just imagine writing the code that does not care what's your soundcard or video card?!

[dosraider]

Lots of amazed people around here.....
:laugh:

[Eagle of Fire]

But that does not stop you to assume that DOS in Win98 was just stripped down version of original DOS, even if everything else tells different.

Did you actually read the link you've posted on your first post? It's one of the few things I agree with the article, I also been saying that since my first post in this thread. Where exactly did you read different?

I have heard, read and said so myself so often over the years and I think it's now pretty much taken for granted in the gaming community...

And just for your info, boot disks were nothing different then other DOS configuration. Remember what DOS abbreviation is for??

Which abreviation? .Exe for executable, .bat for batch files, .com for command file and the likes?

Of course I do.

Also, the reason why I am saying that a boot disk is a whole new OS altogether is because it will bypass any other OS which is installed on the current system. The way computers are made, they will read external drives first before booting to see if there is a boot disk to boot from. When you do boot from a boot disk, you are using the OS from the boot disk itself. Not the OS installed on the computer.

And Microsoft didn't kill the DOS, but gaming companies which moved to windows and something called directX, which made their life much easier.

Just imagine writing the code that does not care what's your soundcard or video card?!

It is Microsoft who initiated everything. They knew very well what they were doing. It was very obvious at the time, like I said.

The DirectX project was commendable, but I don't think your argument follow the road. A lot of oldschool programmer told me at least once that the only reason why there is so many bugs and the files are so large now is because the new generation of programmers are so used to have it easy that they don't bother. They do not have the dedication old programmers had back in the days, which led slowly to the generation of flashy graphics games. It's way easier to work on flashy graphics than to actually create something with good gameplay and content, and there is also way more people who prefer to work as a graphic engineer or whatever it's called than there is good programmers. The industry simply followed.

Frankly, just look at most of the old games on this site. Some of them could hold on a floppy disk, yet they have just as much if not more content than modern games which need 5 gig of HD space. There is a point at which producers think it's not worthwhile to continue to optimize and shrink the game size, and at which point they simply ship everything together in a bundle.

The real reason they are getting games out faster nowaday is not really because of the ease of use or programation, it's more because they have so much money to spend on it than they used back in the days. This mean that the amount of people working on the same project is also exponentially increased. However, all big oldschool classics were created by small gaming companies, and they all took a big chunk of time to create too. Great games are just like anything else, they need to grow out of work and love to be good. Otherwise, it's just another random game.

All this to say that having a standard doesn't really change much in the content of a game or program. DirectX rule the day now? SoundBlaster pretty much ruled the day back then too as far as sound is concerned. If you wanted a sound card with which you were certain to run most to all games you wanted to with it, then you could not go wrong with SoundBlaster.

There is not much difference to me...

[Rogue]

The article points just that Windows is not shell for DOS, as most of users assume. DOS supplied with Win95 was functional to the point that all software (not just games) would work on Win95 if they worked on 6.22.

At the time we started using WinNT and Win95 I worked as IT support, so I had to make sure that all DOS goodies work until there is windows version of software. Some of the stuff we continued using until late 2001.

Now to the point. You complain the stuff you have to do in order to play DOS games in Win98SE, or even worst you just proclaim them non working, while you had to do even more tweaking with old DOS versions. Those boot floppies never were any other OS then DOS command.com, autoexec.bat and config.sys + all required drivers (if you needed them). Even those you had to setup for your machine settings, otherwise they would not work.

As for games developers, just imagine how many thanks and better profit they would have if they clean all the code, make their program much smaller etc. Just remember that in the old time it was big difference to sell the game that comes on 3 or 4 floppies. Nowadays storage is not the problem and I don't see why that should be of any concern to game makers. Also, do not forget that price of HD space is so low now, that it does not make any difference if game takes 10MB or 5GB, except that more game on HD means less wait while playing. (even in the time of DOS i loved to place everything on the HD, makes my life much easier as I hate CD access time)

As for you SB example, you probably remember that SB was at least double more expensive just because it was supported by more gaming companies. At the same time you could get nice, SB compatible cards, and still have no problems, nor your sound would be any worst then someone's with SB.


So far, microsoft is evil to dump DOS, even you master all of their operating systems. :laugh:


At EAB there is a discussion with maker of WinUAE (the best Amiga emulator) about dropping of Win98 support. Apparantly some people are still using DOS and Win98 as their primary OS-es. A lot of interesting points at why to use Win98 over NT platforms. :laugh:

[Geezer]

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

Well, that is certainly the point. DOS 7.0 (the one used in Windows) is a really dumbed down version of the "real" DOS. There is not even a third of all the commands you would find in the "real" DOS, and thus it is incomplete.

The rationale that I have read that Microsoft was using is that they did not want to include anything that could be done in Windows already and that basically they were doing nothing more than supplying some troubleshooting tools to be used when the computer would not boot. I'm sure you have made a Win 98 startup disk ("emergency disk"). Thats about all the use that WinDos 7.0 had. Rougue correctly pointed out above that there were other DOS 7.0 commands available on the tools/oldmsdos folder of the original install disk. Like Rogue, I have never had a problem running a DOS game under DOS 7.0. At least not when booting directly to DOS 7.0 command line by modifying the MSDOS.SYS file. Still WinDos 7.0 is pretty weak if you are trying to use it as an OS from which to run your machine. It was never meant for that, though.

I wonder what would happen if you booted to IBM's PCDOS 7.0 and then tried to run the Win command to start WIN 95? Anyone tried it?