I don't agree. Starting with 95, Windows became a full fledged OS with much better installation routines, hardware detection and driver installation, and a myriad of other improvements. Sure it was based on DOS but you can still say that of XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10. What is the Command prompt but a carryover of the DOS days? The folder structures are still essentially the same. All MS did was remove access to the DOS underpinnings but they are still there. It's like Android. It's based on the Linux kernel but is it Linux? Thank God, no.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Doesn't change facts. Windows95, 98, 98SE and ME all ran on top of DOS 6.22 and DOS 7. In fact, if you actually looked at the system files for Win95, you can see where DOS 6.22 executes the commands to load Windows. You can even prevent Windows from loading at all. If you opened a "command prompt" in Windows95-98SE and ran the "ver" command, it returned the DOS version number. Windows95 even had an option to boot into DOS. After booting into DOS, it was as simple as removing "win.exe" from the config.sys and autoexec.bat files to prevent Windows from loading. Win95 even told you DOS was loading, prior to Windows loading....lol

What a pile of rubbish... Have you ever hard of DirectX, Win32API and stuff like that? 😀 Try you those in your DOS if Windows is just a GUI on top of that OS. :3eyes: :stewpid:

The original release of Win95 didn't contain Win32API. It was only 16bit. Win95B was the first 32bit release of Windows.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Doesn't change facts. Windows95, 98, 98SE and ME all ran on top of DOS 6.22 and DOS 7. In fact, if you actually looked at the system files for Win95, you can see where DOS 6.22 executes the commands to load Windows. You can even prevent Windows from loading at all. If you opened a "command prompt" in Windows95-98SE and ran the "ver" command, it returned the DOS version number. Windows95 even had an option to boot into DOS. After booting into DOS, it was as simple as removing "win.exe" from the config.sys and autoexec.bat files to prevent Windows from loading. Win95 even told you DOS was loading, prior to Windows loading....lol

None of that matters. as I said, starting with XP, they removed the option to get to the underlying DOS kernel but, it was still there. A lot of the old DOS files and utilities are still present, even in Win 10. Really the biggest thing they did in XP was to move all Windows versions over to the NT structure which was always more stable. The abilities of Windows 95 to detect and install hardware and drivers, along with the improved graphics and gaming capabilities, and many other things, made it a true OS and not just an overlay like the previous iterations. It was truly groundbreaking and no subsequent version has had as big an impact in the PC world.

I thought it was rumoured many years ago that we would have a realtime OS by now? What happened to that? Must have been about 98 or so that I first heard the rumours.

The title of the storey should heave read "30 Years Ago Microsoft F'd Over IBM Through Blackmail!" or "It's Been 30 Years Since IBM Shot Themselves In The Foot!" :P

The title of the storey should heave read "30 Years Ago Microsoft F'd Over IBM Through Blackmail!" or "It's Been 30 Years Since IBM Shot Themselves In The Foot!" :P

I thought it was HP MS got the GUI idea from or bought it from? or am i missing somthing

worked a few years with 3.1. not sure I would call it a "windows" as we know it now, it was pretty obvious it was a GUI of ms-dos, i had a Macintosh at that time it was way better didn't they all stole ideas from other people ? Gates and Jobs ?

Windows 1.0 sounds like it's a great OS! Can anyone tell me how I can upgrade my Windows 10 to it?

Can anyone tell me how I can upgrade my Windows 10 to it?

Yeah stick a '.' between '1' and '0' job done give me a pint. 3.1 was my intro to Windows when I went from Primary School (where we all used BBC Micros) and finally got our hands on some of these PC things. The only thing I remember about them was, playing Doom during any free time we had and how great the keyboards felt and sounded when typing on them, turns out they sounded and felt great because they were proper mechanical keyboards. Not sure what type of switches they would have used, was Cherry even a thing 20 odd years ago?

when I started highschool in 1996, all the computers ran windows 3.1 then later upgraded to windows 95 /98 and then windows 2000 in 2001. no internet until later when switching over to windows 95 and windows 98. and they was slow as hell. I found out about doom. by finding the one computer in the whole computer lab that had it on it.

[youtube]kemivUKb4f4[/youtube] [youtube]iqL1BLzn3qc[/youtube]

WOW now that brings back some memories 🤓

None of that matters. as I said, starting with XP, they removed the option to get to the underlying DOS kernel but, it was still there. A lot of the old DOS files and utilities are still present, even in Win 10.

I suppose you've never used Windows Me.

I don't agree. Starting with 95, Windows became a full fledged OS with much better installation routines, hardware detection and driver installation, and a myriad of other improvements. Sure it was based on DOS but you can still say that of XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10. What is the Command prompt but a carryover of the DOS days? The folder structures are still essentially the same. All MS did was remove access to the DOS underpinnings but they are still there. It's like Android. It's based on the Linux kernel but is it Linux? Thank God, no.

XP and on have Zero basis with DOS and never will. It has a ring memory structure pretty much like OS/2 did. A command line is not DOS based either although at one time, a DOS prompt was still made available running on top of Windows XP. There are no DOS underpinnings since Windows ME, period. 😛

I suppose you've never used Windows Me.

ME was a hybrid transitional OS.

XP and on have Zero basis with DOS and never will. It has a ring memory structure pretty much like OS/2 did. A command line is not DOS based either although at one time, a DOS prompt was still made available running on top of Windows XP. There are no DOS underpinnings since Windows ME, period. 😛

Then why are many of the commands you can execute through the Command Prompt identical to those in DOS? You can not run DOS, but a lot of the basic low level functions are still there, just elaborated on and improved. It is still easy to see, even in Win 10, what the origins of the OS were. They are becoming more and more concealed, that much is true. When the Command Prompt is completely gone, then you can say there is no more dependance on old DOS functions, but still will just be more concealment.

Then why are many of the commands you can execute through the Command Prompt identical to those in DOS? You can not run DOS, but a lot of the basic low level functions are still there, just elaborated on and improved. It is still easy to see, even in Win 10, what the origins of the OS were. They are becoming more and more concealed, that much is true. When the Command Prompt is completely gone, then you can say there is no more dependance on old DOS functions, but still will just be more concealment.

Sorry but, that is not at all correct. I do not care about being right or wrong but with computers, they are not based upon what you think but what they are. XP and on are not based on DOS in any fashion. Otherwise, OS /2 would have to be based on DOS as well because I could run straight DOS or the built in DOS from that. Look, the reason I am sharing this is to basically eliminate any misinformation. There has not been a DOS based OS since Windows ME and there never will be again. OS /2 and Windows XP and above have the same memory type structure and underpinnings. Also, are you saying that Linux is DOS based because it has a command line? XP and on were based on Windows NT, not DOS. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that Windows NT was based on DOS as well, which is was not.

ME was a hybrid transitional OS.

No, it wasn't. ME is a straight up DOS based like the previous ones but optimized to be faster. It also removed the ability to boot up straight into DOS but was not a transitional OS.

Sorry but, that is not at all correct. I do not care about being right or wrong but with computers, they are not based upon what you think but what they are. XP and on are not based on DOS in any fashion. Otherwise, OS /2 would have to be based on DOS as well because I could run straight DOS or the built in DOS from that. Look, the reason I am sharing this is to basically eliminate any misinformation. There has not been a DOS based OS since Windows ME and there never will be again. OS /2 and Windows XP and above have the same memory type structure and underpinnings. Also, are you saying that Linux is DOS based because it has a command line? XP and on were based on Windows NT, not DOS. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that Windows NT was based on DOS as well, which is was not. No, it wasn't. ME is a straight up DOS based like the previous ones but optimized to be faster. It also removed the ability to boot up straight into DOS but was not a transitional OS.

Of course Linux is not based on DOS (but it might be better if it was 🙂). Even if Windows is not what you call "DOS based", it still has some of the low level routines. Windows NT did come about because of DOS just like every other Windows Version. Just because there is no user access to the DOS based routines doesn't mean they aren't there. Yes, ME was the last of the 9x track but it added features like system restore and other things that became standard from XP on. That's why I consider it transitional. Maybe hybrid was too strong of a description. Admittedly, I never used it and I saw many people struggle with it compared to 98SE which was always rock solid for me and never required a re-installation. I also consider 2000 to be transitional, probably more so, but it also had a lot of problems with drivers and gaming. I started with DOS on an old IBM machine and used Windows 1.0 through 3.1 but didn't really like them, skipped 95 and went to 98SE, skipped ME and went to XP which was already on SP2, skipped Vista, and went to 64 bit 7 which was already on SP1, put 8 pro on the old XP laptop and then upgraded to 8.1, and then started with 8.1 on this machine which now has 10 still on build 10240. Whatever, I still consider Windows as a true OS to have started with 95 and therefore really only be 20 years old.

Of course Linux is not based on DOS (but it might be better if it was 🙂). Even if Windows is not what you call "DOS based", it still has some of the low level routines. Windows NT did come about because of DOS just like every other Windows Version. Just because there is no user access to the DOS based routines doesn't mean they aren't there. Yes, ME was the last of the 9x track but it added features like system restore and other things that became standard from XP on. That's why I consider it transitional. Maybe hybrid was too strong of a description. Admittedly, I never used it and I saw many people struggle with it compared to 98SE which was always rock solid for me and never required a re-installation. I also consider 2000 to be transitional, probably more so, but it also had a lot of problems with drivers and gaming. I started with DOS on an old IBM machine and used Windows 1.0 through 3.1 but didn't really like them, skipped 95 and went to 98SE, skipped ME and went to XP which was already on SP2, skipped Vista, and went to 64 bit 7 which was already on SP1, put 8 pro on the old XP laptop and then upgraded to 8.1, and then started with 8.1 on this machine which now has 10 still on build 10240. Whatever, I still consider Windows as a true OS to have started with 95 and therefore really only be 20 years old.

Nevermind, just forget it. Please, do some research and get back to us because you clearly are unwilling to listen to experience and reality. NT came from the OS /2 work that IBM and Microsoft worked on together. There are no DOS underpinnings or tie ins at all since Windows ME. Perhaps it was best to let it go like everyone clearly decided to a while ago but, I guess I was just a glutton for punishment.

Then why are many of the commands you can execute through the Command Prompt identical to those in DOS? You can not run DOS, but a lot of the basic low level functions are still there, just elaborated on and improved. It is still easy to see, even in Win 10, what the origins of the OS were. They are becoming more and more concealed, that much is true. When the Command Prompt is completely gone, then you can say there is no more dependance on old DOS functions, but still will just be more concealment.

Why are you so staunch on this? I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect, sykozis is right on the money. ManofGod is almost there, Win ME also was DOS based. NT being the first that wasn't, and XP being the first commercial release that wasn't. The command prompt you see in Windows NT and newer has nothing to do with the kernal or the OS itself, it's simply a CLI purposefully made to resemble DOS giving an alternate way to control the OS. But make no mistake, as much as I like making batch files, CMD is just a benign program that has to interact with the NT Kernel just like every other program. Take note that in order to run DOS programs on an NT based OS you need an emulator. Completely different environment.

I thought it was rumoured many years ago that we would have a realtime OS by now? What happened to that? Must have been about 98 or so that I first heard the rumours.

We do have on microcontrollers but on PC ? I have not heard about those rumours but I dont think that it's going to happen any time soon. Not going to say it will never happen, but it does seem like a fairly challenging task...

Why are you so staunch on this? I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect, sykozis is right on the money. ManofGod is almost there, Win ME also was DOS based. NT being the first that wasn't, and XP being the first commercial release that wasn't. The command prompt you see in Windows NT and newer has nothing to do with the kernal or the OS itself, it's simply a CLI purposefully made to resemble DOS giving an alternate way to control the OS. But make no mistake, as much as I like making batch files, CMD is just a benign program that has to interact with the NT Kernel just like every other program. Take note that in order to run DOS programs on an NT based OS you need an emulator. Completely different environment.

Again, that doesn't make any difference. There are still basic routines in all Windows versions that had their origins in DOS. You can't see them or get to them but they are there. Nobody is talking about running DOS or what the environment is. I know all about DosBox and have used it. You don't have to be able to actually run DOS to have some of it's basic routines still present. My whole argument is that Windows 95 was more than just a GUI like the previous Windows had been. That's it in a nutshell.