China DOS Union

Can't the built-in MS-DOS on the computer be used?

Anything below 98 is pure DOS, while WinME, 2000, XP and above are all virtual.

Yes, the command prompt is not DOS at all.

Then what exactly is DOS??? My computer is running the WIN98 operating system.

Actually they're all dos~~
Before entering 98 it's pure DOS, that is, DOS real mode, and of course after exiting it is too
The DOS in WINME 2000 XP should be called windowed DOS or emulated dos
winME also has DOS real mode, but you have to add a patch

Wrong, that so-called "windowed DOS" is not DOS at all. It evolved from OS/2's "command prompt", because WinNT/2K/XP are based on OS/2, so it has nothing to do with DOS. And it's not emulated DOS either, though calling it emulated OS/2 might be more appropriate.

There are many kinds of DOS

There are many kinds of DOS, such as MS-DOS, PC-DOS, FreeDOS, etc. But WinNT/2K/XP and the like are not DOS, but OS/2. They all have nothing to do with DOS.

So that's how it is, Windows NT was actually based on OS/2

MS was originally preparing to release MS OS/2 3.0, but later renamed and modified it into Windows NT 3.1 and released that..

The following is quoted from Wengier's post at 2004-3-30 5:43:06:
MS was originally preparing to release MS OS/2 3.0, but later renamed and modified it into Windows NT 3.1 and released that..

That's not how it was......after MS released MS OS/2 1.31 it withdrew from OS/2 development, then took the OS/2 source code it had plus its own Win 3.1 source code and turned that into Win NT 3.1.......and originally win nt 3.1 wasn't called win nt 3.1..

Roy: You're the one who's wrong. Don't you know the agreement IBM and MS reached at the time? Originally IBM was supposed to release OS/2 2.0, and then MS was supposed to release OS/2 3.0. But later MS did not release OS/2 3.0. Instead, it modified and updated the earlier MS OS/2 1.x it had and released that as the first version of WinNT. Since the Windows version at the time was 3.1, and part of the Win3.1 code was also added, this version of WinNT was also given the name 3.1, but its actual positioning was basically the same thing as the originally planned OS/2 3.0.

Who's right and who's wrong? This is really giving me a headache!

The following is quoted from Wengier's post at 2004-3-30 6:55:19:
Roy：You're the one who's wrong. Don't you know the agreement IBM and MS reached at the time? Originally IBM was supposed to release OS/2 2.0, and then MS was supposed to release OS/2 3.0. But later MS did not release OS/2 3.0. Instead, it modified and updated the earlier MS OS/2 1.x it had and released that as the first version of WinNT. Since the Windows version at the time was 3.1, and part of the Win3.1 code was also added, this version of WinNT was also given the name 3.1, but its actual positioning was basically the same thing as the originally planned OS/2 3.0.

Things really are as you said........but did you look at the picture I posted?
In the picture is Windows NT (March 93 beta)'s BSOD(Blue Screen of Death).......
Pay attention to the version number.....it's v1.404!
v1 means the OS/2 1.x version (should be 1.31)
404 is the build number

What is OS/2? Can you explain it more clearly?