FreeLists / arachne / [arachne] Re: DOS only or?

["Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!


On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 12:58 -0400, Jason wrote:
> Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
> 
> Udo Kuhnt wrote:
> > Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
> >
> >   
> >>> P.S. Food for thought: XP was less popular than W2K because CLI was
> >>> more limited.
> >>>       
> >
> >   
> >> How was CLI more limited? The cli seems less limited to in xp than it
> >> does in dos.
> >>     
> >
> >   
> >> But what can do in the w2k cli than you can't do in xp?
> >>     
> >
> > AFAIR, starting with at least v3.0, each version of Windows had new
> > restrictions compared with their predecessors. For example, Win3.0 was
> > still able to run in Real Mode, unlike Win3.1, and Win3.11 also removed
> > the Standard Mode. Win95 came with its own version of MS-DOS and no
> > longer allowed the user to run it in any other DOS, and it was setup to
> > start automatically when the PC booted and reboot when Windows was
> > terminated, unless the user was knowlegdeable enough to keep it from
> > doing this. It also had the nasty habit of starting software on CDs that
> > were inserted without letting the user decide this for himself.
> > WinME disabled DOS, and required a patch to unlock it again. Win2000
> > (aka WinNT 5.0) restricted the programs' access of the hardware, and
> > required a boot manager to still run DOS. I do not remember if it was
> > 2000 or XP that introduced the administration "feature" that required
> > the user to properly identify himself to be allowed to work with the
> > computer. IIRC, it was XP that required online activation if the
> > hardware changed, and refused to function otherwise. Don't know about
> > Vista, but I bet it comes with a new set of restrictions that keep
> > things that worked before from working.
> >
> >   
> Udo, but those aren't really CLI issues.
> > Regards,
> >
> > Udo

Yes they really are CLI issues.  Back in the days before there was
Windows 95 one could manage his stuff and run programs on the hard 
drive by using almost any version of DOS he wants.  When Windows 95 
came along one had to install on his hard drive the version of 
DOS that comes with Windows 95  The same drawback existed with WIN98.
Then with W2K and Windows XP one could not even access the hard 
drive by using a DOS boot floppy if he had made an operating 
system installation by accepting the "normal default" to partition 
his hard drive as an ntfs file system. Many of the DOS programs and 
utilities that used to run just fine on one's Win98 system would not 
work at all after he had made the mistake of "upgrading" his system 
to Window$ XP.

Sam Heywood 

                  Arachne at FreeLists                  
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --