StickyI
Actually, to be honest, I first came into contact with an x86 computer used for borrowing and returning books in Tongji University Library for some reason (this was in the 90s, and the library hadn't been renovated yet). At that time, I was just 5 years old... I was startled by the CMD I didn't know yet and mistakenly took it for notepad - -|||
Typing anything in didn't work. Well, there were computer books in the library anyway~ So I read them one by one, accumulating knowledge over time... Finally, in the third year, I had some understanding of some CMD commands (to be honest, if I hadn't read some books about Windows and CMD from 5 to 8 years old, my English would probably be much worse...). In the fourth year, for some reason, I couldn't touch that computer anymore, but many of the books inside were brought out, including library collections...
So I am a DOS enthusiast who grew up under CMD in Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. If we really want to separate DOS and CMD, it's better to say that I was born 5-6 years earlier... At least the computers I could have touched back then must have been DOS...
My personal understanding is that DOS is a real "independent system" with independent booting, disk management, and hardware application, without the need for other third parties. Even if there are third parties, it's probably the BIOS... Hehe
And CMD is just an application called under Windows. Personally, I can understand it as the DOS Shell under DOS... Let's explain the above structure again, that is, at the bottom layer is a BIOS, above it is Windows (3.x, 9x still needs to add a DOS in the middle, and the NT kernel is directly stacked on the BIOS), and then CMD is stacked on top... Once Windows is removed, CMD can't survive.
Windows and CMD can call resources from each other, after all, CMD is just a program written based on the Windows core. In the final analysis, it's just a way to imitate DOS. But essentially it's not DOS, it's just CMD!
If there's anything wrong, I hope everyone can point it out!
[ Last edited by kirov on 2010-2-24 at 23:58 ]
Typing anything in didn't work. Well, there were computer books in the library anyway~ So I read them one by one, accumulating knowledge over time... Finally, in the third year, I had some understanding of some CMD commands (to be honest, if I hadn't read some books about Windows and CMD from 5 to 8 years old, my English would probably be much worse...). In the fourth year, for some reason, I couldn't touch that computer anymore, but many of the books inside were brought out, including library collections...
So I am a DOS enthusiast who grew up under CMD in Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. If we really want to separate DOS and CMD, it's better to say that I was born 5-6 years earlier... At least the computers I could have touched back then must have been DOS...
My personal understanding is that DOS is a real "independent system" with independent booting, disk management, and hardware application, without the need for other third parties. Even if there are third parties, it's probably the BIOS... Hehe
And CMD is just an application called under Windows. Personally, I can understand it as the DOS Shell under DOS... Let's explain the above structure again, that is, at the bottom layer is a BIOS, above it is Windows (3.x, 9x still needs to add a DOS in the middle, and the NT kernel is directly stacked on the BIOS), and then CMD is stacked on top... Once Windows is removed, CMD can't survive.
Windows and CMD can call resources from each other, after all, CMD is just a program written based on the Windows core. In the final analysis, it's just a way to imitate DOS. But essentially it's not DOS, it's just CMD!
If there's anything wrong, I hope everyone can point it out!
[ Last edited by kirov on 2010-2-24 at 23:58 ]
