Subj : Re: Copy to file or directory? Help? Calling MS-Dos? To : Steve From : meirman Date : Mon Feb 04 2002 01:16 am From: meirman@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (meirman) Subject: Re: Copy to file or directory? Help? Calling MS-Dos? From: meirman In comp.os.msdos.4dos on Sun, 03 Feb 2002 15:22:57 GMT "E. S. (Steve) Fabian" posted: >nonvalid_email@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Just because you can replace part of the OS does not mean the replaced >> part is not a part of the OS. This is illogical. Replace command.com >> with 4DOS and it is no longer MSDOS, but 4DOS. No software producer >> will support an altered version of thir product. All guarantees, if >> any, will be null and void. >> >> It seems many 4DOS users see it otherwise. I suggest you an experiment >> as in the example above and decide for yourself. There is no room for >> discussion in this group on this particular topic. Just form your own >> opinion. > >This cowardly author, who uses varying psedonyms, including those of >famous personalities, but refuses to provide his or her own name, >refuses to accept what a freshmen of Computer Science and of Software >Egnioneering are taught, and is also published by Microsoft Press, the >"Microsoft MS-DOS PROGRAMMER'S REFERENCE The Official Technical >Reference to MS-DOS", quoted below (thanks to scannner and OCR): > >Chapter 1: Introduction >1.1 About This Manual >This manual describes the system functions, interrupts, and structures ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >of the MicrosoftR MS-DOSR operating system. These features enable MS-DOS >programs to use the operating system to carry out tasks such as reading >from and writing to files; allocating memory; starting other programs; >and using the key-board, screen, and communications ports. > >Topics include overviews of the MS-DOS system functions; a comprehensive >reference to the system functions, interrupts, and structures; an >explanation of device drivers; and a description of the function >interfaces for MS-DOS exten-sions, such as print spooling, national >language support, and task switching. > >MS-DOS system functions, interrupts, and structures are designed to be >used in assembly-language programs or in assembly-language modules that >can be incorporated in C, Pascal, and other high-level-language >programs. Therefore, to get the most from this manual, readers should be >familiar with the architecture of the 8086 family of microprocessors and >have some experience programming in assembly language for the 8086 >microprocessor. > >Although this manual presents the basic concepts and tasks associated >with the system functions, it is not intended to teach programming in >the MS-DOS environment. The manual does not provide detailed information >about interfaces that are features of a given computer, device adapter, >or software extension. For additional resources about MS-DOS and related >topics, see Section 1.5, "Further Reading." > >Note that there is not one word about command processors, such as PERL, >COMMAND.COM, 4DOS.COM, or any others. Well, duh, there is no reference to the other two files either. It is a functional description, not a technical description. Convince us that all the functions listed above are handled by the two-files. It doesn't matter if it is "official" if it doesn't say one way or the other. >The book's Index lists 3 >references to COMMAND.COM: >1) describes the special features of the environment of a (binary) >prgoram which is started by COMMAND.COM; >2) a discussion of parent and child programs, with COMMAND.COM as an >example of a parent. >3) a short paragraph about (binary, not part of OS) programs requiring >COMMAND.COM to load and run batch files (this is also the only indexed >reference to batch files). > >I hope that this direct quotation from Microsoft's own documentation >will put to bed the issue of what is and what is not part of the MS-DOS >operating system. Note also that eraly IBM PCs could be started without >any operating system, running ROM-based BASIC, and were able to access >all peripherals, including getting a disk directory. That makes the Basic and whatever else was in the Rom into the operating system, even if they don't use that name. I was going to refer you to the list in the part you quote above, but I noticed now that that is not a definition of Operating System. It is a *description* of certain topics they wish to discuss wrt one particular operating system. meirman@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter. -- |Fidonet: meirman 1:342/3 | | Origin: The Cereal Port BBS (603)899-3335 199.125.78.133 (1:132/152) --- # Origin: (1:132/152.4) * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903) .