中国DOS联盟

Hehe, that's it. I have no intention to argue about this issue, because the direct effect of making an X WINDOWS under DOS is imaginable. Let DOS be compatible with X under UNIX in some aspects, make programming users (not users哦) fall in love with X instead of WIN, and let some wavering programmers switch to using UNIX. How well this motivation is hidden.
. . !!

Oh, my homepage address has changed, hey. The original one was too slow and didn't provide FTP service. I moved to WWW.533.NET and did an update by the way.

Address is: http://lemonhall.533.net/

I think it's to make programmers with weak will transfer from UNIX to DOS. Because this porting was done by people from DOS.

Except for user management, memory protection, and security, aren't UNIX and DOS all the same? What UNIX lacks is the real mode of DOS (this determines that UNIX can't replace DOS), and the compatibility with DOS is not good. So, if X is really ported over, of course, the one that benefits the most is DOS.

WinME also runs under pure DOS. MS-DOS 8.0 can directly boot Win9x, WinME, etc. MS-DOS 7.10 can boot Win3.x, Win9x, but there are some minor issues when booting WinME. Only DOS8 can boot WinME normally (so we are trying to HACK that DOS8's IO.SYS because it is compressed). I wonder if anyone has studied the IO.SYS of DOS8/WinME?

Hehe, don't look at that small IO.sys which is only over 200K. Actually, it's quite complicated. I once tried to study WIN98's IO.SYS but failed. Then I never got in touch with IO.SYS again.

Because it's IO.SYS, so it can't be debugged with DEBUG. It seems difficult to use other tools either.

The original IO.SYS of more than 200KB, as I studied, is composed of 4 parts. The latter two parts are really useless (one of them is 98LOGO), and I have deleted them, so it is left about 124KB. As the system boot file of MS-DOS 7.10, it is very useful.

As for the first two parts of IO.SYS, they are composed of IO and MSDOS parts, that is, they are combined by upgrading the DOS6's IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS. I once tried to replace the MSDOS part (47KB) of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.10 with the MSDOS.SYS of MS-DOS 6.22 and the MSDOS part of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.0. The result proved that they can basically be used normally. But in this case, there is a problem in reading FAT32 partitions (FAT32 partitions have drive letters but no content visible, because versions before MS-DOS 7.10 do not support FAT32 partitions). This shows that the IO and MSDOS parts of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.x are updated versions of the corresponding parts of MS-DOS 6.x, that is, MS-DOS 7.x is really an upgraded version of MS-DOS 6.x...

"Besides user management, memory protection, and security, aren't UNIX and DOS all the same? What UNIX lacks is the real mode of DOS (which determines that UNIX can't replace DOS) and poor compatibility with DOS. So, indeed, after porting X over, the one that benefits the most is of course DOS."

Dizzy, what you're saying are all just surface-level things, right.

GNU'S NOT UNIX, and of course DOS isn't UNIX either. Such remarks are not可取. DOS is good, but after all, it's too naive.


UNIX is a time-sharing system, a multi-tasking operating system, with interactive capabilities and batch processing capabilities. The same language processing capabilities as ITS. The corresponding SHELL system and internal TCP/IP support. These are the real things that distinguish between operating systems and are something DOS can't imitate.

Don't forget, UNIX isn't something that can run on microcomputers at all.

After knowing about FREE BSD, LINUX appearing. A real time-sharing operating system that distinguishes between system-level and user memory spaces has emerged. The NT series is barely considered as such. Hehe.

Recommend you to look for discussion articles by LINUS and the father of MINIX, and you will see the debate between monolithic kernels and microkernels.
People who understand operating systems never discuss the differences between DOS and UNIX.

DOS has only learned the form of UNIX, including the file system, redirection, etc. The superficial aspects of the UNIX system

And what is UNIX, including the kernel-level FORK(), and memory scheduling, task scheduling system. Has nothing to do with DOS at all.

I actually don't even want to argue with you anymore, you can go and read the university textbook "Operating Systems". You will understand.

What the person above said is right. Arguing is useless. Both are developing, and it's not like one is going to die out. As for the textbooks in universities, I just don't have time to read them anymore. Reading them won't solve the problem of who wants to eat up whom.

The following is the statement quoted from Wengier on 2003-9-29 10:38:37:
The original IO.SYS of more than 200KB, as I studied, is composed of 4 parts. The latter two parts are really useless (one of them is 98LOGO), which I have deleted, so it is only about 124KB left. As the system boot file of MS-DOS 7.10, it works very well.

As for the first two parts of IO.SYS, they are composed of IO and MSDOS parts, that is, they are combined by the upgraded versions of DOS6's IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS. I once tried to replace the MSDOS part (47KB) of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.10 with the MSDOS.SYS of MS-DOS 6.22 and the MSDOS part of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.0. The result proved that it could basically be used normally. But in this case, there was a problem in reading the FAT32 partition (the FAT32 partition only has the drive letter but no content visible, because the versions before MS-DOS 7.10 do not support the FAT32 partition). This shows that the IO and MSDOS parts of IO.SYS of MS-DOS 7.x are updated versions of the corresponding parts of MS-DOS 6.x, that is, MS-DOS 7.x is really an upgraded version of MS-DOS 6.x...

Well done! Then is DOS 8 more complicated than this? You said it was compressed.

In addition, personally, I think 98 is quite good, and ME has nothing to be nostalgic about. 98, as you said, is nothing but an upgrade of 6.22. Then, it can be imagined, where can ME "progress"? I think, in such a short time, Microsoft doesn't have the ability to make ME have a huge technological leap.

It is very likely that ME just wants to further completely hide the technology and make DOS a thing of the past. This is a warm-up for 2000, and it itself is just a transitional product.

Of course, it would be better if you can figure out the IO of ME. If you can't figure it out, it doesn't matter. This shows that Microsoft has hidden it better, which means that Microsoft's purpose has been achieved, and there is nothing else. I guess, ME is just 98, but further encrypted, making it more difficult for DOS hackers to track.

The following is the statement quoted by Budian on 2003-9-30 14:02:29:

The following is the statement quoted by Wengier on 2003-9-29 10:38:37:
The original 200+KB IO.SYS, as I studied, is composed of 4 parts. The last two parts are really useless (one part is 98LOGO), which I have deleted, so it is only about 124KB left. As the system boot file of MS-DOS 7.10, it works very well.

As for the first two parts of IO.SYS, they are composed of IO and MSDOS parts, that is, they are combined by the upgraded versions of DOS6's IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS. I once tried to replace the MSDOS part (47KB) of MS-DOS 7.10's IO.SYS with the MSDOS.SYS of MS-DOS 6.22 and the IO part of MS-DOS 7.0's IO.SYS. The result proved that it could basically work normally. However, in this case, there was a problem with reading FAT32 partitions (FAT32 partitions only have drive letters but no contents, because versions before MS-DOS 7.10 do not support FAT32 partitions). This shows that the IO and MSDOS parts of MS-DOS 7.x's IO.SYS are updated versions of the corresponding parts of MS-DOS 6.x, that is, MS-DOS 7.x is really an upgraded version of MS-DOS 6.x...

Well done! Then is DOS 8 more complicated than this? You said it is compressed.

In addition, I personally think that 98 is pretty good, and ME has nothing to be nostalgic about. 98, as you said, is nothing but an upgrade of 6.22. Then, we can imagine, where can ME "progress"? I think that in such a short time, Microsoft also does not have the ability to make a huge technological leap in ME.

It is very likely that ME is just trying to further completely hide the technology and make DOS a thing of the past. This is a warm-up for 2000, and it itself is just a transitional product.

Of course, if you can figure out the IO of ME, it would be better. If you can't figure it out, it's okay. This shows that Microsoft has hidden it better, indicating that Microsoft's purpose has been achieved, and there is nothing else. I guess that ME is just 98, but further encrypted, making it more difficult for DOS HACKers to track.

Hehe, why did Microsoft use the NT kernel when launching 2000? And then launched ME to fill the market gap of 98? In fact, Microsoft had already planned for XP when launching 2000. I think Microsoft must have discovered the defects of WIN 4.x, so it further wanted to replace it with the NT kernel

Yes. Microsoft wants its technology to be encapsulated in a "black box". It hopes that others can only use the products it provides, but does not want others to have the same development capabilities as it.

So, it is carrying out a strategy, or it is also a kind of struggle. From its perspective, this is very reasonable.

However, this will come at a cost. Of course, end users are not very sensitive, but developers are annoyed. Development work must be very hard, but Microsoft not only does not provide convenience, but also deliberately creates obstacles. Who can stand this? So, developers all want to move to other platforms. Microsoft seems smart on the surface, but in fact, being too smart turns into a fool. Both end users and developers are important, and neither can be offended. Microsoft's downhill road must continue, because the guiding ideology that leads to its decline has always existed. To stop the decline, we must change the guiding ideology, open the system to everyone, and stop using espionage methods to control users' behavior.

Hehe, the argument here is really intense!
As a noob, I'm very happy to see that there are more experts in the forum!

DOS and Unix seem to have nothing to argue about, they are two different application systems.
To be honest, what I care most about now is not which of the two is stronger, but what we can do now, what we need to do.
I'm a noob, maybe my thoughts are also relatively noobish because of this.

The following is a quote from cn_archer on 2003-10-2 0:27:08:
Hehe, the arguments here are really intense!
As a noob, I'm very happy to see that there are more experts in the forum!

DOS and Unix don't seem to have much to argue about; they are two different systems for different applications.
To be honest, what I care most about now is not which one is stronger, but what we can do now and what we need to do.
I'm a noob, maybe my thoughts are also a bit noobish because of that.

No, this is what a practical person would say

Is cn_archer here? I'm asking for help~~~~~~~

Agree with the view of Bu Dian Jun: In fact, this is how Microsoft makes money.

In the early days of the operating system, during the UNIX era. The term "user" was very sacred, which not only represented the end users but also a large number of developers. "Principles of Operating Systems" is an old book, and we can see such traces from it.

Among them, the definition of an operating system includes the compiler system.

Although 99.75% of our so-called "users" today don't care whether Windows has a compiler system or a user manual when it is released (MANPAGE is not an ordinary user guide), but Microsoft also knows that separating the operating system from the development tools on it can make money twice.

The most hateful thing is that Microsoft's standards are so overbearing. Its standards are often not the best in the industry. But凭借 its monopoly position, it will always become the best.

Take IME for example. The boom in input method development in China in the 1990s was completely extinguished by Microsoft. It changed the IME underlying interface twice within 5 years, making many programmers complain... And some of its operations also completely drove Wubi input method out of the market. (Although there were later releases by volunteers and Wubi's own versions, it is difficult to see the glory of the past.)

jincheng1985, do you have something to talk to me about?