Prev: Unable to use tablet
Next: Explorer.exe - Application Error
From: Mike Hall (MS-MVP) on 20 Dec 2005 17:55
Bill

For many, anything that isn't in a Microsoft Window is perceived as DOS,
even Linux initialisation procedures and versions without the GUI part..
lololololol.. Linux users know better thankfully, as do the more technical
Windows users.. I remember having a University graduate stand with me as I
loaded AIX onto an RS H50.. His first question was "How long does it take to
load?".. His next question was "What version of DOS is that?"..

The answer to question one was '12 minutes'.. I had to go to the restroom
after question two.. :-)


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Bill Helbron" <jw.helbron(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rksgq1tmls02pdj3q4bnchl6a857heaf0g(a)4ax.com...
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the info! The main reason I asked the question in the first
> place is
> that I always noticed that the initial screen that came up was in a large
> DOS-like font and some of the text was actually off the left side of the
> screen.
> That's why I had thought it was resolution-related, but I didn't think
> about the
> fact that XP hadn't loaded yet!
>
> Bill
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:52:14 -0500, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mikehalll(a)mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill
>>
>>The initialisation screen is not DOS.. it may look like a screen running
>>DOS, but that is where it ends.. you must also bear in mind that Windows
>>has
>>not yet started, so any settings pertinent to your Windows installation
>>will
>>not have initialised at that point..
>>
>>ALL computer systems run an initialisation screen at start up, whether
>>they
>>run Windows, UNIX, Linux, DOS etc.. none of the screens are attributable
>>to
>>DOS.. anything appearing on your screen at start up is generated by code
>>encapsulated in the system's BIOS ROM chip, and will appear completely
>>independent of whatever operating system is present on the system drive..
>>
>>DOS was/is an operating system in it's own right, not a screen
>>appearance..
>>if my memory serves me correctly, it was originally QDOS (Quick Dirty
>>Operating System), later changed to DOS (Disk Operating System)
>>
>>Microsoft Windows NT, 2000, and XP are not GUI (Graphical User Interface)
>>shells running on a DOS (DOS 7) base as per Microsoft Windows 9x/ME..
>>
>>Some of the old DOS commands are available in Command Prompt, but that
>>does
>>not mean that DOS, the operating system, exists in XP.. what it means is
>>that some of the old, familiar DOS commands will still do something within
>>XP..


From: Theodore Baldwin Boothe III on 20 Dec 2005 19:11
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:55:53 -0500, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
<mikehalll(a)mvps.org> wrote:

>Bill
>
>For many, anything that isn't in a Microsoft Window is perceived as DOS,
>even Linux initialisation procedures and versions without the GUI part..
>lololololol.. Linux users know better thankfully, as do the more technical
>Windows users.. I remember having a University graduate stand with me as I
>loaded AIX onto an RS H50.. His first question was "How long does it take to
>load?".. His next question was "What version of DOS is that?"..
>
>The answer to question one was '12 minutes'.. I had to go to the restroom
>after question two.. :-)

Serious question here: After question 2, what made you need to go to
the restroom? To laugh or?


From: Mike Hall (MS-MVP) on 20 Dec 2005 20:26
Both..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Theodore Baldwin Boothe III" <DNC_TN(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:0c7hq1t0mfv01hsgmkv771indf36pqhte7(a)lol.com...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:55:53 -0500, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mikehalll(a)mvps.org> wrote:
>
>>Bill
>>
>>For many, anything that isn't in a Microsoft Window is perceived as DOS,
>>even Linux initialisation procedures and versions without the GUI part..
>>lololololol.. Linux users know better thankfully, as do the more technical
>>Windows users.. I remember having a University graduate stand with me as
>>I
>>loaded AIX onto an RS H50.. His first question was "How long does it take
>>to
>>load?".. His next question was "What version of DOS is that?"..
>>
>>The answer to question one was '12 minutes'.. I had to go to the restroom
>>after question two.. :-)
>
> Serious question here: After question 2, what made you need to go to
> the restroom? To laugh or?
>
>


From: Bruce Chambers on 20 Dec 2005 21:05
Bill Helbron wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Your statement that "XP has no DOS mode" was very interesting since I have a
> minor but minor issue - I'm using a 1280 x 1024 screen resolution. When my
> system initially boots, the "DOS" BIOS window comes on very briefly (so briefly
> that you bearly have time to read it!), followed by a "DOS" info screen, then
> the normal XP start-up window. The issue is that these "DOS" screens are at very
> low resolution - certainly not at 1280 x 1024. Why are these screens not at the
> higher resolution?
>


Those aren't "DOS" screens in any way, shape or form, nor can any
Windows display settings have any possible effect on them. They're
displays produced by your motherboard's BIOS. If you're unhappy with
them, contact the motherboard manufacturer for support or to suggest
changes to their product.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
From: S. Taylor on 24 Dec 2005 10:20
You should be able to "compress" the display to get the text back onto the
screen.
I've found that most (if not all) of the more modern monitors rememeber
different
setting for different display modes.
So compressing the view during post shouldn't effect the display of the xp
desktop.

"Bill Helbron" <jw.helbron(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rksgq1tmls02pdj3q4bnchl6a857heaf0g(a)4ax.com...
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the info! The main reason I asked the question in the first
> place is
> that I always noticed that the initial screen that came up was in a large
> DOS-like font and some of the text was actually off the left side of the
> screen.
> That's why I had thought it was resolution-related, but I didn't think
> about the
> fact that XP hadn't loaded yet!
>
> Bill
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:52:14 -0500, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mikehalll(a)mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill
>>
>>The initialisation screen is not DOS.. it may look like a screen running
>>DOS, but that is where it ends.. you must also bear in mind that Windows
>>has
>>not yet started, so any settings pertinent to your Windows installation
>>will
>>not have initialised at that point..
>>
>>ALL computer systems run an initialisation screen at start up, whether
>>they
>>run Windows, UNIX, Linux, DOS etc.. none of the screens are attributable
>>to
>>DOS.. anything appearing on your screen at start up is generated by code
>>encapsulated in the system's BIOS ROM chip, and will appear completely
>>independent of whatever operating system is present on the system drive..
>>
>>DOS was/is an operating system in it's own right, not a screen
>>appearance..
>>if my memory serves me correctly, it was originally QDOS (Quick Dirty
>>Operating System), later changed to DOS (Disk Operating System)
>>
>>Microsoft Windows NT, 2000, and XP are not GUI (Graphical User Interface)
>>shells running on a DOS (DOS 7) base as per Microsoft Windows 9x/ME..
>>
>>Some of the old DOS commands are available in Command Prompt, but that
>>does
>>not mean that DOS, the operating system, exists in XP.. what it means is
>>that some of the old, familiar DOS commands will still do something within
>>XP..


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Unable to use tablet
Next: Explorer.exe - Application Error