China DOS Union

In 1995 when Windows 95 was launched, everyone said that DOS was about to go to the grave, but until today in 2008, 13 years later, there are still so many netizens paying attention to DOS, including yourself!

One must not "suck the milk and curse the mother"

The most basic vitality of DOS comes from "colleges and universities". Every computer major student must study "assembly language". Where else can one study assembly programming if not under the DOS platform? So even in 50 years, DOS will still not die, and each of us will lie in the coffin before the DOS comrades!

All versions of Windows have a program called "Command" or "cmd". Doesn't this just show that Microsoft upgraded DOS to a subset of Windows? As long as there is Windows, there must be DOS. It's just that DOS has changed its clothes. DOS and WINDOWS are a pair of twin brothers. The day DOS dies is the day the Microsoft empire collapses!

Learning DOS well is also part of learning Windows! A person who completely doesn't understand DOS operations and can't do a "ping" command in the command line can one say he is proficient in Windows/UNIX?

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-11-20 at 19:09 ]

The command-line mode is not equivalent to DOS. Unix, Linux, PE, and the console of the NT kernel all have command-line modes. If LS thinks this is also DOS, then it can only be said that the concept is unclear! Fifty years is a long time for computers, and it's unknown how much has changed dramatically. I don't know why LS is sure that DOS will still exist? Mobile phones also have operating systems. Does LS also assert that there will be DOS on mobile phones?

Originally posted by netwinxp at 2008-11-29 10:31 AM:
The command-line mode is not equivalent to DOS. Unix, Linux, PE, and the NT kernel console all have command-line modes. If LS thinks this is also DOS, then it can only be said that there is a lack of clarity in concepts! 50 years for computers...

For the command-line mode in Windows, more than 98% of the command names, command parameters, and syntax are the same as MS-DOS. Our DOS programs can run in the command-line mode without any modification. It is not persuasive to firmly say that Microsoft has completely thrown DOS into the trash. With so many similar commands, isn't the command-line mode the "direct descendant" of DOS? Moreover, Microsoft has never said that it has given up DOS, only that it will no longer release separate versions for DOS.

If the command-line mode in Windows is not called DOS, then it is called "DOS-like", which should always be qualified?

Always emphasizing the differences between the command-line mode and DOS, why not take a look at the similarities between them?

Of course, you consider the command-line mode of WIN and DOS to be completely unrelated things from the perspective of "kernel code implementation and running environment", but I consider the command-line mode of WIN to be equivalent to DOS from the perspective of "operator application".

I have never heard of any "mobile phone" that also has a command-line mode.

If the command-line mode of other operating systems also has "DIR, COPY, XCOPY, FDISK, FORMAT, EDIT", even if it is not DOS, it is also a command-line mode deeply imprinted by DOS! It is designed for the crowd familiar with DOS operations for that operating system's command-line mode!

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-11-29 at 11:23 ]

Many commands in DOS are the same as those in Unix. Changing the "\" in the DOS directory to "/" makes it similar to Unix (Internet URLs also adopt a path format similar to Unix paths). Does that mean DOS can also be called Unix? There are also many commands in command-line FTP that are similar to DOS. Does that mean FTP can also be called DOS?
If the command line is easy to use, many DOS programs wouldn't need a graphical interface, Windows might not have been so necessary, and Linux might not have gone to so much trouble to develop things like X-windows desktops.
From the perspective of ease of use, graphical interfaces are definitely stronger than command lines. Mobile phones are easy for both the elderly and children to use because of their simple interfaces. If they also had command lines, only a few people would be able to use them.
Before discussing the topic of the LZ, it is recommended to first clarify the meaning of DOS mentioned by the LZ.

[ Last edited by netwinxp on 2008-12-1 at 10:19 ]

The similarity between human and gorilla DNA is 98%, and the similarity between human and chicken DNA is 60% (the percentage numbers are not authoritative).
If the command line mode of WIN is "human", then the DOS you think is gorilla, and UNIX is at most chicken!

It can be said:
The similarity between DOS and the command line mode of WIN is "greater than the difference".
The difference between DOS and the command line mode of UNIX is "greater than the similarity".

I bet on the following three situations:
1: A person familiar with DOS operations can be familiar with the command line operations of WIN without any learning.
2: Most people familiar with the command line operations of WIN are familiar with DOS operations.
3: A person familiar with DOS operations is simply blind and illiterate in front of a display and keyboard with UNIX installed without systematic study of UNIX commands, and vice versa!


The command mode of WIN has already appeared in the Win31, Win95, Win97, Win98 era. In terms of application, I don't know the difference between the command line mode of WinXP and that of Win95. From the development process of Microsoft WINDOWS, the command line mode has not changed much.

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-12-1 at 13:20 ]

Is there such a fact:
1: Did DOS become popular in the hands of Microsoft?
2: Were the source codes of DOS perfected by Microsoft programmers?
3: Was the command-line mode of WIN completed by Microsoft programmers? Is it possible that these programmers were the same batch of programmers who developed DOS?
4: Is it possible that the source code of DOS 7.0 and the source code of the command-line mode program of WIN were completed by the same batch of programmers?
5: Is it possible that the programmer transplanted the source code of DOS to the command-line mode of WIN with little change?

Everyone really doesn't need to always like to make a thorough "cut" between "DOS" and "the command-line mode of WIN", and turn the connection between them into a "Stalin-style class struggle"! We should use the perspective of "seeking common ground while reserving differences"!

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-12-1 at 13:36 ]

Before discussing LZ's topic, it is suggested to first clarify the meaning of DOS mentioned by LZ.

From the perspective of "beginner operators", it has nothing to do with "programs, kernels, internal implementations"!
For LZ's proposition, neither support nor oppose.


Any operating system that has a major upgrade of the kernel will necessarily lead to a major upgrade of the "compiler". Unfortunately, excellent compilers are basically monopolized by "Microsoft" and "BORLAND" companies. The reason why LINUX cannot attract a large number of programmers to "contribute" (compared to WINDOWS) is precisely because there is no attractive compiler appearing.

If the kernel upgrade is really realized as LZ wishes, does DOS program have to write programs in assembly language? It is better to first write a "32-bit C++ compiler in real mode" and write a 32-bit Debug.Com program more practical!

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-12-1 at 19:15 ]

Real mode 32-bit? It is suggested that the person above first figure out what real mode and protected mode are.
Is the purpose of搞 (doing) the command line mode just for those few limited supported commands? Or to show off for people who know a few DOS commands? From the user's perspective, the conclusion that the graphical interface is more user-friendly than the command line interface is beyond doubt. For simple applications, using WINDOWS is much better than DOS. What is the purpose of doing DOS? It is not for the command line at all, but for more convenient access to hardware. Is the command line of the NT kernel equivalent to DOS? Unfortunately, many DOS software closely related to hardware simply cannot run normally under it.
Discussing these issues is not to cut the similarities and differences between DOS and the command line, but to determine what the purpose is? Don't just look at the surface and lose the essential! If it is just to be compatible with the so-called DOS commands, changing the names of some linux commands can also achieve a similar level of eight or nine out of ten. In practice, it can be concluded that the graphical interface is far more user-friendly than the command line. If considering only users, there is absolutely no need to use the command line mode. A person who only knows a few DOS commands is not necessarily much more competent than someone who doesn't know these commands.
PS: The number of linux programmers is less than that of WINDOWS programmers, not because of the compiler, but because of the popularity of the operating system! ! !

[ Last edited by netwinxp on 2008-12-2 at 13:17 ]

PS: There are fewer Linux programmers than Windows programmers, not because of compilers, but because of the popularity of the operating systems!!!

What you said is right, but this is just a phenomenon, not the essence.

The rise of Windows was marked by the launch of WIN95.

Linux appeared in 1991, and WIN95 appeared in 1995. The latter actually took the lead! Why?
The reasons are as follows
(1) Way back when, Microsoft had the earliest BASIC language compiler.
(2) In the DOS era, Microsoft had the Microsoft C for DOS language compiler.
(3) Microsoft drew on the MAC operating system and lured GUI developers from MAC.
(4) Microsoft launched the "heavyweight" Microsoft C for windows.
(5) Microsoft launched the "heavyweight" Visual C++ and Visual Basic, etc.
(6) Windows is a "centralized" development, while Linux is a "decentralized guerrilla" development.
(7) Others


Microsoft is a major initiator and reformer of compilers, sparing no effort to "add fuel and wood" to its own operating system. So many factors together made Windows take the "ruling position" of the desktop operating system, making Microsoft a well-deserved "ruling party", and Linux can only be a "opposition party", just looking up at the nostrils of the Windows big brother and complaining a little!


So don't underestimate the "butterfly effect caused by compilers"!

To develop a new operating system, one must have the strategy of "Troops not arriving, provisions ready".

[ Last edited by windowsvesta on 2008-12-2 at 19:39 ]

What is essence, what is phenomenon? As a developer, what platform to develop for is probably based on the popularity of the platform rather than the number of its development tools, right?

PSP gaming consoles also have DOSBox, with complete internal commands

Let's continue the discussion. This discussion is very interesting. Have all of you considered developing a DOS-like system for China's "Loongson", leaving some APIs, and making a Java interpreter, so that a Java virtual machine can be made to run some ready-made programs. It can be modeled after the Linux mode. The important thing is to have rich help documentation. Who can say it can't develop further? Of course, it can be compatible with x86. Linux is good, but this doesn't prevent us from making another one.

[ Last edited by hdst on 2008-12-10 at 18:26 ]

Most future computers will run on a network, and the network is a necessary component for every system. Re - doing DOS or making a kernel is a meaningful task. Although Linux is becoming more and more powerful, it has more and more redundant things. It is too large that no one can understand its running details.

With the internet, there is also something called "cloud computing". In the future, a simple system does not lack the condition to survive. It just needs to keep up with the times. It is necessary to re - make a kernel, and it is best to be 64 - bit.