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

[Bill in Co.]

Oh, and I forgot to add something at the bottom, sorry!

> 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 do know that there are some 16 bit processes still
> running, but that may be tangential to this.
>
>> 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?

Forgot this part: AND are required by Windows for it to function!

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| Oh, and I forgot to add something at the bottom, sorry!
|
|> 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 do know that there are some
|> 16 bit processes still running, but that may be tangential to this.
|>
|>> 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?
|
| Forgot this part: AND are required by Windows for it to function!

This response has floated out of its original thread, Colorado. That's
probably good, because a hijack was half-involved-- 98 Guy should get
half of what OJ gets for that!

I believe Win98 is its own OS. It has its own drivers to control
devices. I believe it doesn't use Real DOS at all, but uses its own
code. There may be TSRs (Terminate & Stay Resident) drivers that DOS has
loaded. Those would have to show up in Config.sys & Autoexec.bat, if
you've got any. Whether or not those drivers continue to use Real DOS
code to operate after they are loaded-- I don't really know. (Possibly
they do, I guess.) Still, it only would prove Win98 is DOS-tolerant.
Win98 uses its own code to operate, not DOS code. I'd probably bet my
left foot that is true!

As far as the stuff that appears in "START, Run, DrWatson, 16-bit
Modules tab", it is unclear to me that they actually use DOS code to
function. I see fairly recent Windows Update critical updates listed
there-- such as KB918547.exe! They may be 16-bit, but I'm guessing they
still will run in protected, 32-bit mode.

Other 16-bit modules I see there, such as Mouse.exe, I know can run in
Real DOS. That one gives me a DOS mouse. It actually isn't running now
that I can see (MEM /d /p... in a DOS box). So, I guess the fact it is
in that tab doesn't prove it is actually loaded, anyhow.

 

[Dan]

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

<snip>

PCR, did you see Tim's reply to the post about computers which I thought
made a lot of sense. I would appreciate your comment on this if you get a
chance. Have a great weekend.

 

[PCR]

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

Dan wrote:
| <snip>
|
| PCR, did you see Tim's reply to the post about computers which I
| thought made a lot of sense. I would appreciate your comment on this
| if you get a chance. Have a great weekend.

You too. I'll comment, if I find it again & have anything useful to add.

--
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

 

[Dan]

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

<snip>

Thanks PCR. BTW, do you think 98 Guy if he is the true 98 Guy from back in
the day of the patching of using IE 2000 patches to patch Windows 98 IE which
I highly doubt because I think it is someone else that is tainting his
reputation and this guy is so rude unlike the former 98 Guy.

 

[PCR]

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

Dan wrote:
| <snip>
|
| Thanks PCR. BTW, do you think 98 Guy if he is the true 98 Guy from
| back in the day of the patching of using IE 2000 patches to patch
| Windows 98 IE which I highly doubt because I think it is someone else
| that is tainting his reputation and this guy is so rude unlike the
| former 98 Guy.

I am not a gossip &/or rumor monger, & I have no opinion as to whether
this 98 Guy is a doppleganger or not. He is a tad rude, though-- yea!

--
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