How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

[Dan]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

<snip>

You do not have to be rude. You just can request that I trim my posts.
BTW, you never answered my question and yet you expect Don to answer yours.
How dense can you be?

 

[Dan]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

<snip>

I should have added not to take my response personally as well. I ask you
now 98 Guy to reflect and think about whether or not that makes it that much
easier to swallow a criticism. In my opinion, this is what is greatly
lacking in society today and that is respect for one another. It is so easy
to go on the attack and challenge each other and say without really saying
how great we are because in effect we can tear others down. I think a true
measure of greatness is how many people did you encourage and build up today.

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson wrote:

> After Win98 loads, the OS protects itself in (largely
> undocumented) ways, e.g. will not copy or delete certain
> system files, will not delete files currently loaded and so on.

Yea, and NT-based OS's do the same. So?

> But DOS is older than these protection protocols, thus is not
> bound by them,

I don't know what kind of strange logic you're invoking with this
example.

Do you know of a file that Windows-9x will not allow to be deleted or
renamed from the explorer or find window, but will allow the operation
in a DOS shell?

> and DOS functions were prerequisite before Windows could load.

In my previous post (which you are avoiding replying to) I quoted MS
when they said that IO.SYS loads win.com. I take that to mean that
command.com is actually never loaded prior to windows being started -
which would make your statement (above) false.

> So we can load via Windows THIS.EXE and THAT.DLL, and Windows
> will then refuse to delete these source files. But we can do
> so in a DOS box.

Please provide an example of a file that windows is protecting but
which can be renamed or deleted from a command shell (dos window).

> This looks as if in at least some respects a Win98 installation
> may be "controlled by DOS:" or you might say Win98 is built
> atop MS-DOS.

Again your logic is bizarre.

"...a win98 installation may be "controlled by DOS".

A win-98 installation is launched by the user - it is not "controlled"
by DOS. Once win-98 setup is launched, then win98 is controlling it's
own installation. What a load of horse-shit to say that DOS is
controlling the win98 install process.

"or you might say that Win98 is built atop MS-DOS"

Not even that is true, because no version of win98 requires that the
system hard drive already have DOS or a DOS license, and the
non-upgrade version of win-98 includes a startup disk (boot floppy) so
that win98 can be installed on a completely empty hard drive.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say that
Win98 is "built on top of DOS"? Or that it is only partially correct (and
ONLY for some backwards compatibility applications)? Or is not even true,
at all?

Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can run without
any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one doesn't try to run some
older app?)

Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just too ambiguous?
Unlike, perhaps, the case of Windows 3.1.


PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> 98 Guy wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree
>>>>> with Phillipson on that!
>>>>
>>>> I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.
>>>>
>>>> So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was
>>>> participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have
>>>> been no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.
>>>
>>> OK, I see that now-- you did change the subject. That's a horse of a
>>> different color. OK, then. I'm staying out of the argument, but
>>> probably I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may
>>> depend on BIOS, but not on DOS.
>>
>> Is that completely true? That NONE of the dos exe, dll, (or
>> whatever) programs are being used, or have a resident footprint in
>> memory in windows? Are you sure?
>
> I have a fat book that says Win98 is its own OS! Also, 98 Guy found a
> helpful MS TechNet article...
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=
true
>
> .......Quote...............
> Technical Notes on MS-DOS Components in Windows 98
>
> Many users have wondered whether Windows 98 contains MS-DOS code and, if
> so, whether that means that Windows 98 is somehow built on top of
> MS-DOS. Many of these questions relate to how Windows 98 achieves the
> highest possible degree of compatibility with existing devices and
> applications created for MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.
>
> ...snip...
> Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although the code
> itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode. Functions
> implemented in this manner ensure backward compatibility with existing
> real-mode software, such as the Novell NetWare client.
>
> ...snip...
> An important example of how Windows 98 reclaims memory from real-mode
> device drivers is MSCDEX, the CD-ROM driver. After Windows 98 Setup is
> completed and Windows 98 starts from the hard disk for the first time,
> special code runs to determine whether the protected-mode compact disc f
> ile system (CDFS) drivers have taken over the CD-ROM drive completely.
> If so, the real-mode MSCDEX driver in memory is matched to the related
> lines in Autoexec.bat, and the MSCDEX entries are then commented out.
> This provides a trail in Autoexec.bat to show what has happened. Similar
> methods are used for other device drivers that Windows 98 knows to be
> safe to remove, such as other vendors' real-mode disk cache utilities
> and redundant protected-mode virtual device drivers (VxDs).
>
> As a final example, some users have wondered whether the fact that
> Io.sys loads Win.com (rather than loading Vmm32.vxd directly) is an
> indication that Windows 98 is built on Windows 3.x code, with the
> addition of new VxDs. Actually, Io.sys is used to load Win.com only to
> ensure backward compatibility. Certain real-mode drivers and
> terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) programs insert themselves at various
> places in the Windows 3.1 startup process. If Windows 98 were to bypass
> the loading of Win.com and instead load VxDs directly, any driver that
> needs to insert itself when Win.com is loaded would never be called.
> Instead, Windows 98 starts in precisely the same way as Windows 3.1 and
> loads the same components in the same order, ensuring compatibility with
> earlier versions of applications and device drivers.
> .......EOQ..................
>
> So...
>
> (a) The DOS in a Windows DOS box is a part of Win98 & it runs in virtual
> mode not real mode.
>
> (b) Real mode DOS device drivers loaded in Autoexec.bat are removed when
> Win98 starts for the first time. Win98 doesn't use them.
>
> It does seem to be true some device drivers may escape (b) & remain as
> TSRs (Terminate & Stay Resident) for backward compatibility reasons. But
> it is unclear to me that those are actually running on DOS. They were
> loaded by DOS, but who knows whether they need DOS after that? Anyhow,
> it WON'T mean Win98 is built on DOS-- but just that Win98 will tolerate
> drivers that are DOS-dependent.
>
>> I do know that there are some 16
>> bit processes still running, but that may be tangential to this.
>
> Yes, I can see those in "START, Run, DrWatson, 16-bit Modules tab". I'm
> not sure what that's about. One day I swear I will investigate! HOWEVER,
> I can think Win98 is running them in 32-bit, protected mode no matter.
> One of them after all is... KB891711.exe-- a fairly recent critical
> update! Also, I see KB918574.exe is there.
>
>>> If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But
>>> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be
>>> controlled by DOS.
>>
>> I don't like the expression "controlled by", whatever that means.
>> How about whether or not ANY of the DOS based exe, dll, or whatever,
>> programs or code are resident in memory?
>
> I think that would just prove WIN98 is DOS-tolerant!
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say
> that Win98 is "built on top of DOS"?

The term "built on top of" can mean two things:

1) it can pertain to the installation of win-98 on a (presumably)
virgin system or hard drive.

2) it can mean that the software programmers built Win-98 "on top
of" the DOS code-base - or that Win-9x/Win-98 is a functional
extension of DOS, and that win-9x is a OS layer that is operating
"on top of" a lower DOS operating layer.

Item (1) would require that a hard drive must have the DOS system
files on it in (including command.com) order for win-9x to be
installed on it. There is a condundrum here, in that at the time that
win-9x/win-98/se was introduced, the "boot from CD" option in the
system BIOS was not a common option (if at all), hence there never was
a bootable win-9x installation CD. So a given system must be able to
be booted with *something* that gave the user access to the win-9x
setup.exe (which was usually on a CD-rom). That *something* was a
bootable floppy disk, which contained and loaded CD drivers and then
launched the install program, which then installed (or built) the
operating system on the hard drive - which can be done without
requiring any DOS files be present on the hard drive.

Which means that win-98 can be "built on top of" a completely blank
(but presumably formatted) hard drive.

Item (2) can be dismissed by noting the simple fact that in order for
DOS to form a foundation (of any sort) for Win-9x, that it would need
to operate in and support 32-bit protected mode operation (in the very
least) and presumably that it support multitasking as well. It does
neither, therefore it can't be said that win-9x is "built on top of"
DOS in a functional or operational sense. What is known about the
win-9x boot and startup process confirms this (io.sys calls win.com -
not command.com at startup).

> Or that it is only partially correct (and ONLY for some backwards
> compatibility applications)? Or is not even true, at all?

Win-9x loads and runs DOS in a virtual environment as if it were just
another driver because of a paltry handful of functions that Microsoft
figured would be necessary to insure backwards-compatibility with
older win-16, novell, and DOS software that were still in common use
back in 1995.

> Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can
> run without any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one
> doesn't try to run some older app?)

To what extent Win-9x calls those various DOS functions for it's own
use, and how frequently, isin't clear to me, but none of them are
significant or influence the design specs of the win-9x family.

> Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just
> too ambiguous?

Since Don is reluctant to directly engage me in this discussion, we
will likely never know what he meant. I would speculate that he is
one of many in the IT world who downplay the ranking of win-98 in the
MS operating system hirearchy. Saying (incorrectly) that win-98 is
"built atop of DOS" is one way to achieve that.

(remainder of full quote of entire thread not reproduced in order
to enhance readability and reduce clutter)

 

[PCR]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Bill in Co. wrote:
| So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say
| that Win98 is "built on top of DOS"? Or that it is only partially
| correct (and ONLY for some backwards compatibility applications)?
| Or is not even true, at all?

| Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can run
| without any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one doesn't try
| to run some older app?)

Whether Win98 is "built on top of DOS" depends upon whether Win98 to
some important degree needs Real DOS code to function &/or whether Real
DOS code has been incorporated into Win98 code. If either of those is
true, then Win98 is built upon DOS-- because it uses DOS to do the
things it does. I assign you &/or Phillipson to pore through Win98's two
million lines of code for the evidence! I think you will not find it!

I believe Real DOS is loaded & may remain functional even after Win98 is
loaded. Then, if some TSR (Terminate & Stay Resident application) needs
to use it, it can. However, that only would prove Win98 is DOS-tolerant!

|
| Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just too ambiguous?
| Unlike, perhaps, the case of Windows 3.1.

....snip

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

To correct myself...

98 Guy wrote:

> There is a condundrum here, in that at the time that win-9x/
> win-98/se was introduced, the "boot from CD" option in the
> system BIOS was not a common option (if at all)

The 1998 - 1999 time frame corresponds with the introduction of the P2
and P3 cpu's, which probably had boot-from-CD as a bios option (it's
been a while since I've laid eyes on a P2 or P3 bios setup screen).
Maybe 486-based motherboards didn't have boot-from-CD as a bios
option?

> hence there never was a bootable win-9x installation CD.

Some web resources say that all the various versions of win-98 CD's
were not bootable, but some on-line step-by-step win-98 installation
guides say otherwise.

In any case, regardless of how a system is booted (from a setup floppy
or a win-98 CD) the fact remains that win-98 can be "built" onto
(into?) an empty hard drive - which would mean that win-98 is not
"built on-top of DOS".

PCR wrote:

> Whether Win98 is "built on top of DOS" depends upon whether
> Win98 to some important degree needs Real DOS code to
> function &/or whether Real DOS code has been incorporated
> into Win98 code.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Microsoft says that Win-98 makes
the following list of DOS functions available for apps that need them:

Create Program Segment Prefix (function 55h)
- no MS or other relavent web resourse found
- no win32 API equivalent?

Get MS-DOS Version (function 30h)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/win9x/msdos_5ir7.asp
- no win32 API equivalent?

Create Temp File (function 5Ah)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/49849
- win32 API functional equivalent is
"Create Unique File" GetTempFileName

International (function 65h)
http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/i18n-faq/msg00000.html
- "This interrupt returns extended country information."
- Windows uses GetProfileString API function.

Dup File Handle (function 45h)
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/assembly-language/x86/general/part2/section-6.html
- no win32 API equivalent?

Set/Get Drive (functions 0Eh and 19h)
- no MS or other relavent web resourse found
- win32 API functional equivalent is
"Select Disk" - SetCurrentDirectory
"Get Current Disk" - GetCurrentDirectory

Exit (function 4Ch)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/114588
- seems to be a pure DOS function that win-9x
would not rely on for normal operation)
- no win32 API equivalent?

Set/Get Program Segment Prefix (functions 50h and 51h)
- no MS or other relavent web resourse found
- no win32 API equivalent?

Get Date/Time (functions 2Ah and 2Ch)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5918039-description.html
- says that functions 2A and 2C are located in IO.SYS
- win32 API functional equivalent is
"Get Date" - GetDateAndTime
"Get Time" - GetDateAndTime

NetWare Get Station Num (function DCh)
- no MS or other relavent web resourse found

This is a link pertaining to "Porting MS-DOS System Calls":

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa984837(vs.71).aspx

It is a list of DOS int21h function calls and their Win32 API
equivalent and is the source for some of the above information.

> ... If either of those is true, then Win98 is built upon DOS--
> because it uses DOS to do the things it does.

Again, quoting directly from Microsoft:

"Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although
the code itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode.
Functions implemented in this manner ensure backward
compatibility with existing real-mode software, such as the
Novell NetWare client."

Those functions (which I detailed above) are hardly what you would
call a "foundation-set" that you would base an OS like Win-9x on, so
it makes no sense to say that Win-9x is "built upon" them (or in
general, to be "built upon" DOS).

> I assign you &/or Phillipson to pore through Win98's two
> million lines of code for the evidence! I think you will
> not find it!

Any DOS code that was integrated into a Win32 program module would
render it no longer DOS.

> I believe Real DOS is loaded & may remain functional even
> after Win98 is loaded.

Again, read the Microsoft quote (above). I think that IO.SYS is one
of those DOS components that is indeed running in a virtual 8086
environment, but only to provide a handful of functions for legacy
apps.

> However, that only would prove Win98 is DOS-tolerant!

Or more correctly - DOS (and Novell) friendly.

The NT product line (including XP and Vista) probably also includes
some similar set of DOS support functions. I have a data acquisition
and graphing program (written and compiled in PowerBasic) that
functions just fine in XP and Vista.

 

[PCR]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:
| To correct myself...
|
| 98 Guy wrote:
|
|> There is a condundrum here, in that at the time that win-9x/
|> win-98/se was introduced, the "boot from CD" option in the
|> system BIOS was not a common option (if at all)
|
| The 1998 - 1999 time frame corresponds with the introduction of the P2
| and P3 cpu's, which probably had boot-from-CD as a bios option (it's
| been a while since I've laid eyes on a P2 or P3 bios setup screen).
| Maybe 486-based motherboards didn't have boot-from-CD as a bios
| option?
|
|> hence there never was a bootable win-9x installation CD.
|
| Some web resources say that all the various versions of win-98 CD's
| were not bootable, but some on-line step-by-step win-98 installation
| guides say otherwise.
|
| In any case, regardless of how a system is booted (from a setup floppy
| or a win-98 CD) the fact remains that win-98 can be "built" onto
| (into?) an empty hard drive - which would mean that win-98 is not
| "built on-top of DOS".

I disagree with that statement. IF an important amount of Win98 code is
actually copied over from DOS code, I think it could be said Win98 is
"built on top of DOS". I doubt it-- BUT my mind is open, pending
Colorado & Phillipson have scoured Win98's two million lines of code for
evidence! I think I owe them that much!

| PCR wrote:
|
|> Whether Win98 is "built on top of DOS" depends upon whether
|> Win98 to some important degree needs Real DOS code to
|> function &/or whether Real DOS code has been incorporated
|> into Win98 code.
|
| As I mentioned in a previous post, Microsoft says that Win-98 makes
| the following list of DOS functions available for apps that need them:
|
| Create Program Segment Prefix (function 55h)
| - no MS or other relavent web resourse found
| - no win32 API equivalent?
|
| Get MS-DOS Version (function 30h)
|
http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/win9x/msdos_5ir7.asp
| - no win32 API equivalent?
|
| Create Temp File (function 5Ah)
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/49849
| - win32 API functional equivalent is
| "Create Unique File" GetTempFileName
|
| International (function 65h)
| http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/i18n-faq/msg00000.html
| - "This interrupt returns extended country information."
| - Windows uses GetProfileString API function.
|
| Dup File Handle (function 45h)
|
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/assembly-language/x86/general/part2/section-6.html
| - no win32 API equivalent?
|
| Set/Get Drive (functions 0Eh and 19h)
| - no MS or other relavent web resourse found
| - win32 API functional equivalent is
| "Select Disk" - SetCurrentDirectory
| "Get Current Disk" - GetCurrentDirectory
|
| Exit (function 4Ch)
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/114588
| - seems to be a pure DOS function that win-9x
| would not rely on for normal operation)
| - no win32 API equivalent?
|
| Set/Get Program Segment Prefix (functions 50h and 51h)
| - no MS or other relavent web resourse found
| - no win32 API equivalent?
|
| Get Date/Time (functions 2Ah and 2Ch)
| http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5918039-description.html
| - says that functions 2A and 2C are located in IO.SYS
| - win32 API functional equivalent is
| "Get Date" - GetDateAndTime
| "Get Time" - GetDateAndTime
|
| NetWare Get Station Num (function DCh)
| - no MS or other relavent web resourse found
|
| This is a link pertaining to "Porting MS-DOS System Calls":
|
| http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa984837(vs.71).aspx
|
| It is a list of DOS int21h function calls and their Win32 API
| equivalent and is the source for some of the above information.

Well, let us say Real DOS is loaded & available for use to the user of
Win98 through functions that are a part of Win98. It still wouldn't
prove Win98 itself is dependent on DOS-- but only that Win98 can command
it!

|> ... If either of those is true, then Win98 is built upon DOS--
|> because it uses DOS to do the things it does.
|
| Again, quoting directly from Microsoft:
|
| "Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although
| the code itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode.
| Functions implemented in this manner ensure backward
| compatibility with existing real-mode software, such as the
| Novell NetWare client."
|
| Those functions (which I detailed above) are hardly what you would
| call a "foundation-set" that you would base an OS like Win-9x on, so
| it makes no sense to say that Win-9x is "built upon" them (or in
| general, to be "built upon" DOS).

If these "functions" are actual DOS code that Win98 on its own must use
to work, then I would have to lean the other way in this argument. Is
that the complete list? Even as small as that, some of them sound
important, such as...

Set/Get Drive (functions 0Eh and 19h)
Set/Get Program Segment Prefix (functions 50h and 51h).

I would think those need to be done a lot! But I see you have found a
win32 API functional equivalent for one of those. But does that API call
or incorporate the DOS code? Can Phillipson have been right?

|> I assign you &/or Phillipson to pore through Win98's two
|> million lines of code for the evidence! I think you will
|> not find it!
|
| Any DOS code that was integrated into a Win32 program module would
| render it no longer DOS.

True-- but Win98 could be said to be "built upon DOS". Maybe, though, in
a lesser sense than if calls were made to actual DOS code.

|> I believe Real DOS is loaded & may remain functional even
|> after Win98 is loaded.
|
| Again, read the Microsoft quote (above). I think that IO.SYS is one
| of those DOS components that is indeed running in a virtual 8086
| environment, but only to provide a handful of functions for legacy
| apps.

IO.sys is the first program loaded during boot (it is mentioned in the
Partition Boot Record), & it is loaded before Win98 is started. I don't
think a virtual machine can exist until then. Also, didn't Zabcar say...
newsi54f3hg610sa1nj0svaa0dtsgqvc2n7a2@4ax.com
.... he could go from IO.sys to Real DOS, load Windows with WIN, & have
Real DOS available after Windows was closed? Therefore, I lean toward
the belief Real DOS code is always present & available. It's just a
matter as to whether Win98 actually requires it to be present to
function.

|> However, that only would prove Win98 is DOS-tolerant!
|
| Or more correctly - DOS (and Novell) friendly.
|
| The NT product line (including XP and Vista) probably also includes
| some similar set of DOS support functions. I have a data acquisition
| and graphing program (written and compiled in PowerBasic) that
| functions just fine in XP and Vista.

That would prove XP & Vista can emulate DOS while emitting their
irradiation rays. They can do two things at once, then!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[MEB]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:u5UGy7h$HHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| Bill in Co. wrote:
| | So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say
| | that Win98 is "built on top of DOS"? Or that it is only partially
| | correct (and ONLY for some backwards compatibility applications)?
| | Or is not even true, at all?
|
| | Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can run
| | without any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one doesn't try
| | to run some older app?)
|
| Whether Win98 is "built on top of DOS" depends upon whether Win98 to
| some important degree needs Real DOS code to function &/or whether Real
| DOS code has been incorporated into Win98 code. If either of those is
| true, then Win98 is built upon DOS-- because it uses DOS to do the
| things it does. I assign you &/or Phillipson to pore through Win98's two
| million lines of code for the evidence! I think you will not find it!
|
| I believe Real DOS is loaded & may remain functional even after Win98 is
| loaded. Then, if some TSR (Terminate & Stay Resident application) needs
| to use it, it can. However, that only would prove Win98 is DOS-tolerant!

Cute, seems semantics are again being used in a discussion, why doesn't
this surprise me.

DOS - disk operating system

MSDOS - Microsoft's disk operating system

Windows - GUI aspects designed around Microsoft's disk operating system

Evidence of MSDOS - windows\command\xcopy.exe and xcopy32.exe - both are
stubs calling the same xcopy32.mod - Explorer handles xcopy within the GUI.

Evidence of 32 protected mode MSDOS [MSDOS 7 and 8] - shown when Windows
crashes and runs scandisk, then IMMEDIATELY loads Windows WITHOUT error.
Were there no MSDOS running [in memory] the programs would have no command
interpreter to use OR device and disk access. Moreover, only one version of
scandisk would be needed if Windows was actually already running.

Some claim IO.SYS defines the issue, clearly those people that do, fail to
take under consideration the actual coding and history of Microsoft's
products.
So let's actually view the supposed important coding of IO.SYS {98SE} -
[Rather than relying upon misinformation, guess what, you actually have the
code available to look at. Why not do so. Don't make me post ALL 9X file
coding to expose the DOS aspects.]

CLOCK$ j
CONFIG$
PQRU3
COMPu
COMPuB&
PVWUS
FAT12
FAT16
FAT32
NO NAME
!8!`@aAbBfFgGhHI
u&<Ft=<Gt9.
C:\SYSTEM.DAT
C:\WINBOOT.INI
&YXtJS
tBw*RQSPU
NO NAME
NO NAME
C:\BOOTLOG.TXT
C:\BOOTLOG.PRV
MDF??(Logo disabled)
_fZYrJ
0123456789ABCDEFS
Insert diskette for drive
and press any key when ready
Your program caused a divide overflow error.
If the problem persists, contact your program vendor.
Windows has disabled direct disk access to protect your long filenames.
To override this protection, see the LOCK /? command for more information.
The system has been halted. Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart your computer.
You started your computer with a version of MS-DOS incompatible with this
version of Windows. Insert a Startup diskette matching this version of
Windows and then restart.
IOSYSMSGX
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
NO NAME
FAT12
dVDISK V3.3
VDISK3.3
DBLSPACEINI
ONOFF
<ArN<ZwJ
<[t(<Ot]<EtY<At
MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1995 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material -
Property of Microsoft All rights reserved NUL
\CONFIG.SYS
A:\COUNTRY.SYS
COUNTRY
CONFIG=
COMMON
ACCDATEa
BREAKC
BUFFERSB
BUFFERSHIGHb
COMMENTY
COUNTRYQ
DEVICED
DEVICEHIGHU
DRIVPARMP
FCBSHIGHx
FILESF FILESHIGHf
INCLUDEJ
INSTALLI
INSTALLHIGHW LASTDRIVEL
LASTDRIVEHIGHl
LOGOq
SUBMENUO MENUCOLORR
MENUDEFAULTA
MENUITEME
MULTITRACKM
NUMLOCKN
SHELLS
STACKSK
STACKSHIGHk
SWITCHES1
ARVFHSTDICN
:\WINDOWS
:\WINDOWS
\COMMAND
TMP=TEMP=\TEMPPROMPT=$p$g
winbootdir=PATH= /K NETSTART
/D /K AUTOEXEC
COMSPEC=\WNBOOTNG.STS
\HIMEM.SYS
/TESTMEM:ON
\ASPI2DOS.SYS
\ASPI2HLP.SYS
\DBLBUFF.SYS
\IFSHLP.SYS
\SETVER.EXE
EMMXXXX0
IFS$HLP$
SETVERXX
\AUTOEXEC.BAT
IO DOS
MSDOS DOSIBMBIO COMIBMDOS COMIO.DOS
IBMBIO.COM
W40DOSWOSAPP
CONFIG.APP
CONFIG.WOS
C:\MSDOSSYS.STS
IO.SYS
MSDOS.SYS
C:\MSDOS.SYS
COMMAND.COM
CONFIG.SYS
AUTOEXEC.BAT
DBLSPACE.BIN
DRVSPACE.BIN
IO.W40
JO.SYS
MSDOS.W40
WINBOOT.INI
\COMMAND.COM
\COMMAND.COM
\COMMAND.COM
\WIN.COM
(Safe boot)
IBM ThinkPad 510
b[PATHS]
e[OPTIONS]
eWINDIR
]dWINBOOTDIR
vdHOSTWINBOOTDRV
dUNINSTALLDIR
dLOGO
DBLSPACE
DRVSPACE
BOOTKEYS
BOOTDELAY
dBOOTWIN
BOOTGUI
BOOTWARN
BOOTMULTI
DOUBLEBUFFER
BOOTMENUDEFAULT
LBOOTMENUDELAY
LBOOTMENU
LBOOTSAFE
LNETWORK
!LLOADTOP
BOOTCONFIG
dDISABLELOG
dSYSTEMREG
AUTOSCAN
dWINVER
<:u<ar<<zw8$
< t6< t2<,t1< u
UsHIGH
NOUMB
NOAUTO
SINGLE
PROTMAN$ATiVideoQEMM386$QLODR$10?STAC-CDProT
IO SYS
SCSIMGR$
MBRINT13SYS
UqHttHtjHt`HtVHt
t4</t0<,u!
QEMM386.SYS
\DRVSPACE.BIN
C:\DRVSPACE.INI
C:\DBLSPACE.BIN
\STACKER.BIN
DBLSBIN$
\LOGO.SYS
Loading Device = LoadFailed = LoadSuccess =
C:\IO.SYS
C:\JO.SYS
<DWCMu9L
}RSWuI&
}TAPuA
This version of Windows requires a 386 or better processor.
A20 hardware error. Contact technical support to identify the problem.
Starting Windows 98...
Windows 98 is now starting your MS-DOS-based program.
Windows 98 is now restarting...
Press Esc now to cancel MS-DOS mode and restart Windows 98...$
There is an unrecognized command in your CONFIG.SYS file.
The following command in your CONFIG.SYS file is incorrect:
The sector size specified in this file is too large: $
The following file is missing or corrupted: $
WIN.COM
COMMAND.COM
There is an invalid country code or code page in your CONFIG.SYS file.
There is an error in the COUNTRY command in your CONFIG.SYS file.
There is not enough memory for the COUNTRY.SYS file.
Remove some drivers from your CONFIG.SYS file, and then try again.
The configuration specified in your CONFIG.SYS file is too large for memory.
Remove some drivers, and then try again.
You have too many block devices specified in your CONFIG.SYS file.
Remove some disk drivers from your CONFIG.SYS file, and then try again.
The STACKS setting(s) in your CONFIG.SYS file are incorrect.
Default stack settings will be used instead.
There is an error in your CONFIG.SYS file on line $
Warning: Logical drives past Z exist and will be ignored.
Microsoft Windows 98 Startup Menu
Enter a choice: $
F5=Safe mode Shift+F5=Command prompt Shift+F8=Step-by-step confirmation
[ ]$
[Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
YNAyna
Time remaining: $
Type the name of the Command Interpreter (e.g., C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND.COM)
Press any key to continue . . .
Windows is bypassing your startup files.
Windows is bypassing your startup files.
Minimal network support will be loaded if available.
Windows is starting the command prompt only.
Windows will prompt you to confirm each startup command.
Load DoubleSpace driver [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Load DriveSpace driver [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
The compression driver cannot be set up correctly.
Get a version from your vendor that is compatible with this version of
Windows.
Process the system registry [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Create a startup log file (BOOTLOG.TXT) [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Process your startup device drivers (CONFIG.SYS) [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Process your startup command file (AUTOEXEC.BAT) [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Load the Windows graphical user interface [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$
Warning: Windows has detected a registry/configuration error.
Choose, Command prompt only, and run SCANREG.
Warning: Windows has detected a compressed drive access error.
Choose Safe mode command prompt only, to help you identify the problem.
Warning: Windows did not finish loading on the previous attempt.
Choose Safe mode, to start Windows with a minimal set of drivers.
Warning: Windows multi-boot may not function correctly.
Check for system files in your root directory with conflicting extensions.
Warning: the system configuration manager failed to run.
Some of your real-mode device drivers may not initialize properly.
Normal
Logged (\BOOTLOG.TXT)
Safe mode
Safe mode with network support
Step-by-step confirmation
Command prompt only
Safe mode command prompt only
Previous version of MS-DOS
The BUFFERS setting(s) in your CONFIG.SYS file are too large.
Default buffer settings will be used instead.
A memory allocation error occurred during startup.
Restart your computer and select Interactive Start to identify the problem.
Warning: the high memory area (HMA) is not available.
Additional low memory (below 640K) will be used instead.
There is not enough memory for Windows.
Remove some drivers from your CONFIG.SYS file, and then try again.
Your previous MS-DOS files were not found. $
Your previous MS-DOS version is not supported. $
MS-DOS startup failed.
Now loading your previous version of MS-DOS, please wait.
Invalid setting in the MSDOS.SYS file: $
An internal stack overflow has caused this session to be halted.
Change the STACKS setting in your CONFIG.SYS file, and then try again.
IOSYSMSG
MPADMP [dozens of this line padding removed]
ADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
gJ_@gEg$g%`
F|OqO5P7P
FJgOg^_2_
OVWg6g*P I&IFIWI
P3AeP
KGjii
UWVRQSP
UWVRQSP&
RIt6ItLIt4It<IuC
@MS<>==?KRRAAS[
T\jThuT\juO
fYfHf
fXfZfYfBf@fIu
fXfZfY
..memTkfk
FAT3u
"vHY^X[s
| PIPEu
&fZY[fX_f^
fPfSfQfRfZfYf[fX[`
MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1995 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material -
Property of Microsoft All rights reserved 6
fBfIt
OfRfQf
fYfZr<f
fBfIu
f[fYfQfSf
fZf[fY
fZf[fYrp&
f[fYr f
fYfXf+
IfPRQ
=RRaAu2f
rrAau'
fZ[Y_fXr
EEEIII

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`ABCDEFGHIJKL
MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ{|}~
CUEAAAACEEEIIIAAEAAOOOUUYOU$$$$$AIOUNN
NO NAME
\COUNTRY.SYS
M/d/yy dddd,MMMMdd,yyyy
e8m1E
6tAas
FYoSw
sY21X
wnxM~I,w
tAtgvQ
itTLx
yf81P
NDa3d $C
#Kqq>iA
Yqg}LD0
>U-DJLk
98ap`iH
@EJLld
2ejUI
Ap:xvq(
:~DiNJg
IK/F10
~None of the above
Enter your choice:
Windows cannot determine what configuration your computer is in.
Select one of the following:
Original Configuration
Undocked
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
MPADMPADMPADMPADMPAD
<st'<ntQ<pt`<Et
FCCA9N
<RGDBu
MS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1992, Microsoft Corp
C:\WINDOWS
ASD_Wizard
ASD.EXE /w
Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\WinBoot
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem
Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Network\Real Mode Net
Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Network
SystemRoot
BootCount
LASTDRIVE
DoubleBuffer
Win31FileSystem
SetupN
INSTALLED
GetDevParmsIoctl
Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce
0123456789ABCDEF
ASD.dat
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\ASD\Prob
CONFIG$
<Noname Config>
FriendlyName
FriendlyName
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\IDConfigDB
COMPAQ
TOSHIBA
SOFTWARE\CLASSES
..DEFAULT
_C_FILE_INFO=
- stack overflow
- integer divide by 0
- not enough space for environment
run-time error
- floating-point support not loaded
- null pointer assignment
!Packed file is corrupt
y8y4y0y,y(y$y y
4W=EDcD
-----------------------

From the above we can glean that IO.SYS first checks and sets a number of
potential variables including the registry. then command.com IS used prior
to win.com. Moreover, we also see that a number of other DOS functions are
called and USED prior to starting the GUI called *Windows*. Only AFTER all
base DOS aspects are called and used, is authority passed to the GUI
environment which win.com then starts loading..

win.com contains:

WININIT.EXE
WININIT.INI
COMMAND.COM
DOSSTART.BAT
win.com
PATHsystem\vmm32.vxd
windir=
SMARTDRV.EXE
FUTURE DOMAIN CORP. (C) 1986-1990 1800-V2USER.DAT
SYSTEM.DAT
.. . .
-----------
Note the first command.com called by IO.SYS is in the root, then the
Windows folder version is used. win.com uses the Windows folder version.
Those familiar with DOS will recognize the distinctively visual display of
the old *shell*like command formerly used in config.sys to assign alternate
or primary command.com and variables in IO.SYS.
Those familiar with DOS will also recognize the FCBS, and other aspects
called/assigned within IO.SYS, which would previously have been included
within config.sys or autoexec.bat. However, we also see that IO.SYS takes in
to consideration the presence of config.sys and autoexec.bat, and some other
potential files that might indicate what needs run or otherwise consulted.

Reviewing bootlog.txt indicates essential elements:

[0001680A] Loading Device = C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS
(Logo disabled)
[0001680A] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS
[0001680A] Loading Device = C:\WINDOWS\DBLBUFF.SYS
[0001680B] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\DBLBUFF.SYS
[0001680B] Loading Device = C:\WINDOWS\IFSHLP.SYS
[0001680B] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\IFSHLP.SYS
[0001680E] C:\WINDOWS\ASP4DOS.COM[0001680F] starting
[00016814] C:\PROGRA~1\GRISOFT\AVG7\BOOTUP.EXE[00016814] starting
[000169A6] Loading Vxd = VMM
[000169A6] LoadSuccess = VMM
[000169A6] Loading Vxd = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
[000169A7] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
[000169A7] Loading Vxd = vnetsup.vxd
[000169A7] LoadSuccess = vnetsup.vxd
[000169A7] Loading Vxd = ndis.vxd
[000169A8] LoadSuccess = ndis.vxd
[000169A8] Loading Vxd = ndis2sup.vxd
[000169A8] LoadFailed = ndis2sup.vxd
[000169A8] Loading Vxd = JAVASUP.VXD
[000169A8] LoadSuccess = JAVASUP.VXD
[000169A8] Loading Vxd = CONFIGMG
[000169A8] LoadSuccess = CONFIGMG
[000169A8] Loading Vxd = NTKERN
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = NTKERN
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = VWIN32
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = VWIN32
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = VFBACKUP
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = VFBACKUP
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = VCOMM
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = VCOMM
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = COMBUFF
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = COMBUFF
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = C:\WINDOWS\system\VMM32\IFSMGR.VXD
[000169A9] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\system\VMM32\IFSMGR.VXD
[000169A9] Loading Vxd = C:\WINDOWS\system\VMM32\IOS.VXD
[000169AB] LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\system\VMM32\IOS.VXD
.. . .
-----------

Here the display shows the first DOS aspects, then necessary virtual memory
[vmm]
environment setup, then *drivers* being setup within the virtual environment
for the OS PRIOR to the actual GUI OS.

Windows 9X IS built upon DOS. Moreover, though the original meaning was
"disk operating system" today it should be referred to as *device operating
system*, we've come a long way from $10.000 10 meg hard drives and the PC
speaker for sound..

First MS GUI - DOS Shell - enhanced by Microsoft with the acquisitions of
various other companies and eventually implementing those codings into
Windows 95. Some of that former third party programming coding contains 16
and/or 32bit native non-Microsoft DOS code {and GUI enhancements - like
Software Tool Works [found in Windows 3.1 and 3.11] and other GUI programs
which worked IN and ON plain DOS or MSDOS].
MSDOS also steals, er, modifies coding [check some of the earliest court
matters regarding Microsoft/Bill Gates] segments from UNIX INCLUDING aspects
of disk operation, and, IBM chip access routines. {You may find some of that
interesting as Bill thought that code was or should be "public" in contrast
with Microsoft's present attitude.}

Does this indicate Windows is based upon DOS, built on top of DOS, or any
other claim one wishes to make therein related - YES. Windows history and
coding DOES contain MSDOS [and other disk operating systems] in 8, 16 and 32
bit, and several hundred other acquisitions by Microsoft which also
implemented both 8, 16, and 32bit DOS coding.

Windows *claim to fame* is its graphical interface to DOS {disk/device
operating system} activities. Does changing device control from the old DOS
direct chip access to its present form make 9X non-DOS?
Hardly, massive amounts of coding are supplying those same functions. The
GUI enables more graphic aspects related to those DOS functions. When you
right click CUT and then PASTE, is that different than MOVE. When you open
Explorer and click a directory, how is that different than typing DIR /p.
The difference lay in THE DISPLAY, the GUI, and the extra inclusions when
that DIR is performed like also displaying attributes [attrib]. If you used
the old DOS SHELL, some of those same functions were found there. If you
used one of the old DOS or FILE managers, many of those functions were found
there as well.

Does this also mean 9X Windows is its own unique environment - Yes and NO.
Though MSDOS was no longer [supposedly] the primary STARTING code [though
actually it is, just look at the code], the basic coding within the now GUI
environment finds its roots in MSDOS. It does NOT matter that VXDs, and
other aspects now handle the formerly real DOS {8bit and 16bit} aspects
within the GUI, they are merely placed within a different memory environment
and handled somewhat differently within that operating environment.
Microsoft sales gimmicks [and many of its KBs] were [are] always designed
around making people believe its products are entirely new and unique, which
is generally sufficient to cause the uninformed to purchase them [and courts
and the Patent Office to scratch their heads].

Windows uniqueness is the manner in which this disk and device activity is
accomplished, and the fact that its cost was comparatively cheap for a
commercially produced product.. However, here some aspects were also
*borrowed* from other operating systems, including SUN's. Again, one need
merely review the early court cases against Microsoft/Bill Gates.

What matters is that the coding used therein {GUI Windows} [Delphi, C,
FoxPro, Basic, VB, etc.], which does find its roots in that same code
[assembly/chip calls] included within the chipsets and processor that was
and is called and used by plain old real DOS regardless of whether it was
Microsoft's or not [hence we find the venerable X86 coding and/or support
still continued within Intel chips and processors], and STILL necessary to
be called and used, just in a different way. So does that make it new or
something different than DOS, hahahah, no, its still using chip calls and
coding. Windows ADDS [manipulates] basic chip functions/coding

Windows versions starting with 95 and NT began to implement virtual mode,
which is the only really important enhancement [beyond the supposed enhanced
disk access of NT]. This allows essentially fictitious environmental aspects
within the system, evidenced for instance, by virtual memory which was
previously handled via TSR versions using below 1024 and/or base 640 k
memory. Increasing the memory addressing available, thereby increased the
ability to run multiple programs, while still keeping essential system files
active.
Once again though, Microsoft was late to the game as much of this had
already occurred using third party programs such as QEMM. Leaving us with
just the GUI as Microsoft's *advanced feature*. But even there Microsoft was
behind the game, Apple had already produced a much more workable, and user
friendly GUI environment. Side by side Apple's GUI blasted Microsoft's.
The problem: Apple's need for specific support, and lack of manufacturer
compliance/support {Steve Jobs just couldn't get the same agreements
rolling}.

How did Microsoft garner more of the market - the key to Microsoft's early
success was fomented by providing FREE access to the base code to
programmers and beta testers, low cost versions, and commercial agreements
made with chip producers.
During the *early days* one needed to merely contact the Microsoft BBS and
download any of its "new" code. Apple provided no such access, moreover, its
code was chip specific. That left the *geeks* with only Microsoft's coding
[until IBM opened their's], or their own, or Unix [which had already
produced some of its children, such as Xenix, etc.] and a few other DOSs
[such as CP/M].
Some of those surpassed Microsoft's, such as:
TSX operating system - multi task, network support /dos [Microsoft was
still basically single task and little network support]
or enhancement's such as
DOSNIX - provided many of the features which UNIX users took for granted
along with some features not even found on UNIX systems, providing vastly
superior tools.

So, were it me, I would carefully think about what has actually occurred in
the history of Microsoft before I would claim 9X is NOT MSDOS.

Of course, all this is just my opinion, but I happen to be one of those
people who DID contact the BBS and followed Microsoft basicly from its
beginnings.

|
| |
| | Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just too ambiguous?
| | Unlike, perhaps, the case of Windows 3.1.
|
| ...snip
|
|


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

PCR wrote:

> | the fact remains that win-98 can be "built" onto (into?) an
> | empty hard drive - which would mean that win-98 is not
> | "built on-top of DOS".
>
> I disagree with that statement.

How so?

> IF an important amount of Win98 code is actually copied over
> from DOS code,

That statement that you disagree with doesn't talk about code history
or code integration.

> IF an important amount of Win98 code is actually copied over
> from DOS code,

Do you even know what DOS is?

Win-98 is many mega-bytes of 32-bit protected-mode code. DOS is (at
best) several hundred kbytes of 16-bit real-mode code.

> I think it could be said Win98 is "built on top of DOS".

Saying that is as farcical as saying that iPhone is "built on top of"
the iPod.

> I doubt it-- BUT my mind is open, pending Colorado & Phillipson
> have scoured Win98's two million lines of code for evidence!
> I think I owe them that much!

So basically you're saying that it would take an examination of win-9x
source code to convince you that win-9x is NOT "based" or "built" upon
DOS, and further that you expect such an examination to be performed
by someone that is conspiciously absent from this thread?

(I can't tell if you're serious, or not).

> | Again, read the Microsoft quote (above). I think that IO.SYS
> | is one of those DOS components that is indeed running in a
> | virtual 8086 environment, but only to provide a handful of
> | functions for legacy apps.
>
> IO.sys is the first program loaded during boot (it is mentioned
> in the Partition Boot Record), & it is loaded before Win98 is
> started. I don't think a virtual machine can exist until then.

IO.sys may be fully loaded prior to win.com being executed - but it is
then most certainly nuked as the CPU is transitioned from real to
protected mode. The only function of IO.SYS is as a boot loader.

Windows 9x uses (a new version of) IO.SYS, which replaces the MS-DOS
system files (IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS). The actual underlying core of
win-9x is the virtual machine manager (vmm32.vxd). Most likely, the
DOS functions mentioned previously are handled by DOSMGR.VXD (the
MS-DOS Emulation Manager) and V86MMGR.VXD (the MS-DOS Memory Manager).

> Also, didn't Zabcar say...
> ... he could go from IO.sys to Real DOS, load Windows with
> WIN, & have Real DOS available after Windows was closed?

No - all he said was that he could force win-98 to NOT load with the
appropriate .ini file setting.

> Therefore, I lean toward the belief Real DOS code is always
> present & available.

What do you mean by "DOS code" ???

Are you aware that "real DOS code" can only run in a virtual x86
environment - an environment that is set up and controlled by Windows?

> It's just a matter as to whether Win98 actually requires it
> to be present to function.

Back in 1995, I bet that Micro$oft certainly believed that their
support phones would ring off the hook unless Windows 95 was
compatible with DOS applications, so in their mind yes, Windows 95
certainly needed to emulate some DOS function calls.

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

MEB wrote:

> Windows 9X IS built upon DOS.

How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
"built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?

> Does this indicate Windows is based upon DOS, built on top of DOS,
> or any other claim one wishes to make therein related - YES.

Are you saying that Win-9x is a GUI that runs "on top of" DOS?

Windows 9X is built upon, or based, on the virtual machine manager.
Yes, some aspects of DOS functionality is necessary during the boot
process in order to get the machine to the point where the VMM has
switched the processor into protected mode and the system virtual
machine has been created. But I differentiate the boot process with
the end result - the end result being something VERY DIFFERENT and NOT
BASED or BUILT on DOS.

> Windows history and coding DOES contain MSDOS [and other disk
> operating systems] in 8, 16 and 32 bit, and several hundred
> other acquisitions by Microsoft which also implemented both
> 8, 16, and 32bit DOS coding.

So then by that reasoning, one could say that Vista is also built upon
DOS?

> So, were it me, I would carefully think about what has actually
> occurred in the history of Microsoft before I would claim 9X is
> NOT MSDOS.

You're bringing politics into what is a technical issue.

The question here is not asking if Windows-X is unique or has borrowed
concepts and functions from other companies or products. The question
is "how much does Win-9x rely directly on DOS for it's design or
functionality". Because it does far more than DOS ever did from a
service-provision point of view, and because it does it in a vastly
different CPU operating mode (one that is completely foreign to DOS),
the answer is that Win-9x could not have been based (or built) on
DOS.

That is not the same as saying that Win-9x must be "aware" or
"compatible" with DOS application programs. Win-9x can (and must) run
important DOS applications. But that design goal does not mean that
Win-9x must be based on or "built on" DOS.

Lastly, I raise again the idea that just because DOS and Win-9x are
aware of the same File Allocation structure (FAT-32) - that doesn't
make them related or make Win-9x a derivative of DOS.

 

[MEB]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46F87F2C.F47E56B1@Guy.com...
| MEB wrote:
|
| > Windows 9X IS built upon DOS.
|
| How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
| "built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?

Because those aspects had already been implemented prior to Microsoft's
Windows 95 by third parties and within Intel and AMD processors. The
problem: Microsoft DOS was incapable of using that processing environment
prior to Win95 [and NT]. Not that it couldn't have, just that it wasn't in
Microsoft's plans.

|
| > Does this indicate Windows is based upon DOS, built on top of DOS,
| > or any other claim one wishes to make therein related - YES.
|
| Are you saying that Win-9x is a GUI that runs "on top of" DOS?

You can play this little word game all you wish, Windows is a graphical
user interface FOR DOS.

|
| Windows 9X is built upon, or based, on the virtual machine manager.
| Yes, some aspects of DOS functionality is necessary during the boot
| process in order to get the machine to the point where the VMM has
| switched the processor into protected mode and the system virtual
| machine has been created. But I differentiate the boot process with
| the end result - the end result being something VERY DIFFERENT and NOT
| BASED or BUILT on DOS.

Phht... yeah right, the end results is you have a graphical environment so
the non-geeks/non-savvy could use a computer.

EVERYTHING done in Windows could be done from DOS, meaning the command
prompt or a DOS application running WITHOUT the bloat of Windows GUI.
Moreover, apparently the device operating system, let's call it THE
FUNCTION to perhaps clarify, somehow has escaped your thought process. So
VMM is loaded, ah okay so what is accomplished. You have taken memory,
increased its addressing space, crammed some programs/devices into it, and
done what? Oh wait, you've created the ability to run more than one DOS
program at a time... combined a few commands into one, put some buttons and
menus on a tool bar which call those commands, and created a interface so
you can watch, that's Windows... and that ah, "virtual machine" runs where
and on what .... is it floating out in space somewhere, or running in some
fifth dimension I haven't heard about yet ...

|
| > Windows history and coding DOES contain MSDOS [and other disk
| > operating systems] in 8, 16 and 32 bit, and several hundred
| > other acquisitions by Microsoft which also implemented both
| > 8, 16, and 32bit DOS coding.
|
| So then by that reasoning, one could say that Vista is also built upon
| DOS?

One could, except for the fact it is entirely different coding specific to
the NT environment, NOT based upon Microsoft DOS [the commercial MSDOS].
None the less, it IS a DOS [device operating system] so yeah, its a DOS,
just not what most would consider as DOS, e.g. command line DOS. Heck we can
even make that more plain: the new chipsets have no [or little] prior DOS
support and require NT's HAL layer and other aspects to function. As the old
were designed for DOS, the new are designed for NT.

|
| > So, were it me, I would carefully think about what has actually
| > occurred in the history of Microsoft before I would claim 9X is
| > NOT MSDOS.
|
| You're bringing politics into what is a technical issue.

No I'm not, I'm bringing technical facts, and proper issues. Not so
strangely I even produced the CODE. You present opinion and what ...
Microsoft hasn't really created much on its own, or at least in the early
days. Most of Windows 3.* and 9X/ME was acquired from other companies or
used
under license agreement. Just as a large part of its fat and other that it
now holds patent for could reasonably be traced to other contributors or
acquisitions, or at times, questionable activities.

|
| The question here is not asking if Windows-X is unique or has borrowed
| concepts and functions from other companies or products. The question
| is "how much does Win-9x rely directly on DOS for it's design or
| functionality". Because it does far more than DOS ever did from a
| service-provision point of view, and because it does it in a vastly
| different CPU operating mode (one that is completely foreign to DOS),
| the answer is that Win-9x could not have been based (or built) on
| DOS.

Which DOS are you referring too,, Microsoft? then you're somewhat right,
Windows GUI far exceeds Microsoft's prior plain MSDOS activities. As for the
*vastly different CPU operating mode* guess what, that was also already
available WAAAAAAAAAY before Microsoft implemented it and Intel provided
support... for instance, SUN had done that already using its own processors
and OS..

As for "could not have been based (or built) on DOS", gees what about all
those DOS extenders . . . and other OSs which had already provided such from
their version of DOS..... Is it that you think Windows manages to control
and use the functions of the chips WITHOUT accessing them or something? Gee,
what are you smoking?

If ALL you're referring to is commercially available MSDOS and ONLY
Microsoft's offered tools:
Once support from Intel was provided for this activity chipwise, there were
other OSs implementing this ability [regretfully most ever made it beyond
those whom had stumbled upon them on some BBS or heard about them on FIDO].
They lacked, however, the financial backing and media adverti$ing that
Microsoft has used so successfully.

And we should address UNIX had accomplished the same years before, though
using multiple processors, again before Microsoft even thought about it.

Plus that kinda overlooks all those third party cards and progs that
provided extended/expanded memory WAAAYYY back in the 086 days [like BOCA]
before Microsoft even questioned how to exceed chip limitations.
Microsoft has yet to be *cutting edge*, though maybe with the soon to be
super chips it has the chance to be in the lead for once, though if
Microsoft screws up as badly as it did with VISTA ....

Moreover, the users of MSDOS knew Microsoft could have offered this in
plain MSDOS, they also realized Microsoft wouldn't as it wanted its flagship
GUI for the mass market, that's where the money was... 6.22 was the end of
the command prompt [there were a lot of Microsoft betas being offered before
Win95 was sent to market, something virtual without the full GUI, a better
DOS SHELL...]
MSDOS could easily have been modified to support Intel's new code, but it
wasn't *WINDOWS*, which was Microsoft's GUI OS for that millennium. Windows,
the OS that anyone could use without the need to know WHY or HOW it worked.
Oh the magic of it all.

We can't overlook the fact that third parties DID supply programs that used
that new Intel code ability, nor can we overlook the fact that 32bit DOS is
still being worked on, the stumbling block being Microsoft's patents and
Intel's privacy agreement's with Microsoft [and competition with AMD].

|
| That is not the same as saying that Win-9x must be "aware" or
| "compatible" with DOS application programs. Win-9x can (and must) run
| important DOS applications. But that design goal does not mean that
| Win-9x must be based on or "built on" DOS.

So what the heck is it based on,, let me guess, thin air, or mystical
qualities taken from old texts from the ancient alchemists.... yeah right,
it pulls the same assembly [chip] code from the chips as MSDOS did. So now
you have several billion lines of code and a couple hundred DLLs, taking the
place of a couple dozen lines, yep, that's advancement alright.

Open a command prompt in Windows and type * set *. Hmm, seems command.com
is "comspec", look it up if you don't know what that means..

So what's the major usage by the common user of VISTA: cruising the
Internet, downloading programs, and playing music, games, or videos. Yep,
billions of lines of code, massive memory consumption and hard drive space,
and the necessary fast processor so they can multi-task *downloading* while
*chatting* online.

|
| Lastly, I raise again the idea that just because DOS and Win-9x are
| aware of the same File Allocation structure (FAT-32) - that doesn't
| make them related or make Win-9x a derivative of DOS.

So basically what your saying is this whole supposed "discussion" is just
so you can pass some time, right... sorry, got other things to do, I did my
part, if you're not going to address the code then this is just ramblings.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98is built atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:

> How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
> "built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?

I stand to be corrected but I do believe that the Window 9x Win32 API is
mostly thunked down to 16-bit, that means that KERNEL32, USER32 and
GDI32 are thunked down to their 16-bit counterparts, respectively those
are thunked down to KRNL386, USER.EXE and GDI.EXE. In essence these
core Windows 9x components are 16-bit code wrapped in 32-bit code, they
aren't pure 32-bit like that of the NT family.

I do know that to be true of Windows 95 and I don't think that the Win32
API was reinvented with Windows 98, but I could be wrong...

John

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98is built atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:

> How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
> "built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?

To further my other post, it uses Win16Mutex.

John

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98is built atop MS-DOS)

John John wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
>> "built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?
>
>
> To further my other post, it uses Win16Mutex.

And to yet further my post again, the information in my other posts can
be verified here:

http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/356/03/1.html
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/356/03/2.html
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html

John

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

John John wrote:

> I stand to be corrected but I do believe that the Window 9x Win32
> API is mostly thunked down to 16-bit, that means that KERNEL32,
> USER32 and GDI32 are thunked down to their 16-bit counterparts,
> respectively those are thunked down to KRNL386, USER.EXE and
> GDI.EXE. In essence these core Windows 9x components are 16-bit
> code wrapped in 32-bit code, they aren't pure 32-bit like that
> of the NT family.

According to this:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

"The Windows 98 architecture includes performance improvements
over earlier versions of Windows. The changes, which strongly
impact most areas of system performance, are as follows:

- 32-bit device drivers for all system components, ensuring
better performance and better resource management.

Also, this link:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

Chapter 28 - Windows 98 Architecture

Says this:

"Microsoft Windows 98 is a 32-bit operating system that
provides built-in Internet connectivity, Plug and Play
hardware support, high performance, robustness, and backward
compatibility with Windows 95. Windows 98 enhancements to
Windows 95 include more sophisticated power management,
multiple video display support, and integrated support for
the latest hardware. Also included is support for the new
Win32 Driver Model (WDM), allowing a WDM device to run under
both Windows 98 and future versions of Windows NT using the
same driver."


And importantly, it goes on to say this:

-------------
Like Windows 95, Windows 98 is derived from the Windows 3.1
platform and includes the following features:

- A complete 32-bit kernel, including memory management,
and preemptive multitasking and multithreading support.

- A fully integrated 32-bit, protected-mode file system,
which eliminates the need to rely on a separate copy of
MS-DOS once the system boots up.

- 32-bit installable file system drivers supporting FAT,
FAT32, ISO 9660 (CD-ROM), ISO 13346 (Universal Disk Format
/Digital Video Disc [UDF/DVD]), network redirection, and
high performance. These file system drivers also support
the use of long file names and an open, modular architecture
to handle future expansion.

- WDM support, which allows a WDM-supported device to run
under both Windows 98 and future versions of Windows NT
using the same driver.
--------------

Note the second point in the above list.

> I do know that to be true of Windows 95 and I don't think that
> the Win32 API was reinvented with Windows 98, but I could be
> wrong...

If you could identify an information source, preferrably from
Micro$oft, where they state that some (or any) of the win-9x API or
Kernel is thunked 16-bit code, then please do.

It's highly likely that very eary versions of windows (windows 1 or 2,
maybe 3.0) had significant amounts of 16-bit code, but that seems to
have been completely changed to 32-bit code with windows 95.

A more detailed analysis of Win-95 is probably necessary to help
answer this 32-bit/16-bit issue.

This link:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

Says this:

---------------
Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR 2, and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 are
all 32-bit operating systems that use the same Win32 API.
Although the API has changed and expanded to encompass new
features, programs will, in most cases, work without modification
on all three operating systems.
----------------

The first sentence in the above is very key to this discussion.

So it appears that you are wrong when you say this:

> I do believe that the Window 9x Win32 API is mostly thunked down
> to 16-bit, that means that KERNEL32, USER32 and GDI32 are thunked
> down to their 16-bit counterparts, respectively those are thunked
> down to KRNL386, USER.EXE and GDI.EXE. In essence these core
> Windows 9x components are 16-bit code wrapped in 32-bit code,
> they aren't pure 32-bit like that of the NT family.

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:

>>I do believe that the Window 9x Win32 API is mostly thunked down
>>to 16-bit, that means that KERNEL32, USER32 and GDI32 are thunked
>>down to their 16-bit counterparts, respectively those are thunked
>>down to KRNL386, USER.EXE and GDI.EXE. In essence these core
>>Windows 9x components are 16-bit code wrapped in 32-bit code,
>>they aren't pure 32-bit like that of the NT family.

I did say that I stood to be corrected but I was not completely wrong
with my post. From further findings and reading it appears that
Kernel32 doesn't thunk down unless it is running or spawns 16-bit
applications but Microsoft states that User32 and GDI32 are mostly
thunked down on W9x system. NT does not thunk down to 16-bit to run
these or to run 32-bit appliactions.

Understanding Win16Mutex
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/125867

Thunking on Windows 9x is more prevalent than you might think, other
examples shown here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/137813
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/137176

John

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:

> Chapter 28 - Windows 98 Architecture
>
> Says this:
>
> "Microsoft Windows 98 is a 32-bit operating system that
> provides built-in Internet connectivity, Plug and Play
> hardware support, high performance, robustness, and backward
> compatibility with Windows 95. Windows 98 enhancements to
> Windows 95 include more sophisticated power management,
> multiple video display support, and integrated support for
> the latest hardware. Also included is support for the new
> Win32 Driver Model (WDM), allowing a WDM device to run under
> both Windows 98 and future versions of Windows NT using the
> same driver."

• Windows NT is a true 32-bit operating system, whereas Windows 9x
contains a considerable amount of 16-bit code that has been ported from
Windows 3.1.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/winarch.mspx?mfr=true



> And importantly, it goes on to say this:
>
> -------------
> Like Windows 95, Windows 98 is derived from the Windows 3.1...


Of course it is, it's half full of 16-bit code, and half the time it
runs on 16-bit components!

Now let us know where Windows 3.1 is derived from...

John

 

[John John]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98is built atop MS-DOS)

John John wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> How can a 32-bit, protected-mode, multi-tasking operating system be
>> "built upon" a 16-bit, real-mode, single-tasking operating system?
>
>
> To further my other post, it uses Win16Mutex.

And yet more information about thunking and those famous win16mutex

http://www.radsoft.net/resources/rants/20000321,00.shtml

John

 

[PCR]

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|
|> | the fact remains that win-98 can be "built" onto (into?) an
|> | empty hard drive - which would mean that win-98 is not
|> | "built on-top of DOS".
|>
|> I disagree with that statement.
|
| How so?
|
|> IF an important amount of Win98 code is actually copied over
|> from DOS code,
|
| That statement that you disagree with doesn't talk about code history
| or code integration.

I'm just saying an examination of the lines of code that make up Win98
is warranted. If there are important similarities to DOS code (meaning
the actual machine instructions that do the work), then it can be said
Win98 is "built upon DOS". Soon, I will closely examine MEB's monster
post to see whether he has proven it!

|> IF an important amount of Win98 code is actually copied over
|> from DOS code,
|
| Do you even know what DOS is?

In the end, all programming languages are a series of machine
instructions thrown at the CPU (Central Processing Unit).

| Win-98 is many mega-bytes of 32-bit protected-mode code. DOS is (at
| best) several hundred kbytes of 16-bit real-mode code.

For the purpose of determining whether Windows is built upon DOS, the
processing mode doesn't matter all that much. New instructions must be
added to set up a virtual environment. But, when it comes to reading &
writing files within a virtual machine, for instance,-- are the
instruction sequences put into the CPU to an important degree the same?
There is thunking down that John John brought up to be considered too.

|> I think it could be said Win98 is "built on top of DOS".
|
| Saying that is as farcical as saying that iPhone is "built on top of"
| the iPod.

I know nothing of iPod & iPhone.

|> I doubt it-- BUT my mind is open, pending Colorado & Phillipson
|> have scoured Win98's two million lines of code for evidence!
|> I think I owe them that much!
|
| So basically you're saying that it would take an examination of win-9x
| source code to convince you that win-9x is NOT "based" or "built" upon
| DOS, and further that you expect such an examination to be performed
| by someone that is conspiciously absent from this thread?

It looks like MEB has taken up the gauntlet! It's a matter of whether
DOS code is called by Windows &/or whether the code has been
incorporated into Windows code. If either is true to an important
degree, then Windows can be said to be "built upon DOS". It may take 30
days to read through MEB's post, though, for the final answer! I see you
have begun!

| (I can't tell if you're serious, or not).

I'm always at least 37% serious & at least 13% comic!

|> | Again, read the Microsoft quote (above). I think that IO.SYS
|> | is one of those DOS components that is indeed running in a
|> | virtual 8086 environment, but only to provide a handful of
|> | functions for legacy apps.
|>
|> IO.sys is the first program loaded during boot (it is mentioned
|> in the Partition Boot Record), & it is loaded before Win98 is
|> started. I don't think a virtual machine can exist until then.
|
| IO.sys may be fully loaded prior to win.com being executed - but it is
| then most certainly nuked as the CPU is transitioned from real to
| protected mode. The only function of IO.SYS is as a boot loader.

IO.sys is DOS code that sets up the DOS environment by issuing a series
of commands that can be modified by entries in Config.sys &
Autoexec.bat. OI.sys will process those files & even the Registry during
boot. It has a lasting effect to Windows DOS (in a box). Also, remember
what Zabcar proved-- Windows can be loaded from Real DOS, & Real DOS
STILL is there after Windows is shut down!

I believe it is IO.sys that carries out the interactive startup, if
chosen from the boot menu. See p.103 of Windows 98 Secrets (Livingston &
Straub) for more. Well, here is something from p.104...

"(IFSHLP.sys) is the helper file for the installable file system. This
is needed for the Virtual File Allocation Table (VFAT) file system that
Windows 98 uses to imitate the standard DOS and Windows FAT file system
and still store long filenames."

Just how much "imitation" is done? If it is an overly significant
amount-- then it could be said Win98 is "built upon DOS".

| Windows 9x uses (a new version of) IO.SYS, which replaces the MS-DOS
| system files (IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS).

What page of what fat book says that?

| The actual underlying core of
| win-9x is the virtual machine manager (vmm32.vxd). Most likely, the
| DOS functions mentioned previously are handled by DOSMGR.VXD (the
| MS-DOS Emulation Manager) and V86MMGR.VXD (the MS-DOS Memory Manager).

I'm sure all of that is a significant addition to DOS, but how much DOS
code was incorporated into it, if any? Could be some of the answer is in
MEB's post. I'll be back in 32 days after reading it!

|
|> Also, didn't Zabcar say...
|> ... he could go from IO.sys to Real DOS, load Windows with
|> WIN, & have Real DOS available after Windows was closed?
|
| No - all he said was that he could force win-98 to NOT load with the
| appropriate .ini file setting.

He forced it not to load automatically in MSDOS.sys. Then, he put the
WIN command into Autoexec.bat, which did load Windows. After Windows was
shut down-- DOS was still there waiting for additional commands!

|> Therefore, I lean toward the belief Real DOS code is always
|> present & available.
|
| What do you mean by "DOS code" ???

I mean the machine language code that DOS is translated into. All
programming languages ultimately must become machine language code fed
to the CPU one instruction at a time.

| Are you aware that "real DOS code" can only run in a virtual x86
| environment - an environment that is set up and controlled by Windows?

Once a virtual envirronment is established, you have kind of multiple
machines all sharing the single CPU. Is the code running in one of the
machines to some important extent dependent on DOS or even just copied
over from DOS? That is the question!

|> It's just a matter as to whether Win98 actually requires it
|> to be present to function.
|
| Back in 1995, I bet that Micro$oft certainly believed that their
| support phones would ring off the hook unless Windows 95 was
| compatible with DOS applications, so in their mind yes, Windows 95
| certainly needed to emulate some DOS function calls.

I believe that. In their effort to be compatible, how much of Real DOS
has survived that is important to the functioning of Windows?

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net