DOS in Year 2010
BC Associates Mgmt Consultants
Will there be any issues/problems when running dos program in Year 2010
because there is news
circulating around that DOS programs will not recognise the year 2010?
Thanks!
Regards,
Jen
Gerard Bok
Consultants" <bci...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
> Will there be any issues/problems when running dos program in Year 2010
>because there is news
>circulating around that DOS programs will not recognise the year 2010?
Seems rather easy to test :-)
Just copy the stuff involved, set the PC's date to anything
beyond 2010 and see what happens.
(Afterwards, restore the original files. Just 2B sure :-)
Practically I would be more worried that
a) 2010 hardware might not be able to run Dos and
b) 2010 OS editions may lack proper Dos support ;-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
Auric__
> Will there be any issues/problems when running dos program in Year 2010
> because there is news circulating around that DOS programs will not
> recognise the year 2010?
Mr. Bok's solution is the easiest test, but really, I don't expect any
problems with 2009 vs 2010. (I didn't expect any with 1999 vs 2000 either,
but that's just me.) There *might* be a problem in 2048 (which would be
essentially the same as the Unix Year 2038 problem[1], offset by 10 years),
but I don't know what effect that problem might have -- it could range from
nothing, to complete system failure.
Just out of curiosity, can you post some links to where this "news" might be
found? Google is *not* my friend in this instance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
--
- Get the hell off my car!!
- Meow.
Tim Meddick
Do you know what the Command Interpreter is like in Win7, relative to XP?
Many of my old [pure] DOS utilities (inc. qbasic) work quite well under XP's edition
of "cmd.exe"...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Gerard Bok" <bok...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4a85419...@News.Individual.NET...
Gerard Bok
<timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> Do you know what the Command Interpreter is like in Win7, relative to XP?
Some reading:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926657
http://www.vistax64.com/vista-general/130495-16-bit-ms-dos-sub-system-error.html
http://en.kioskea.net/s/solution-for-16-bit-ms-dos-subsystem
As long as you don't need the 16-bit subsystem, you're in the
clear, mostly :-)
Tim Meddick
What I wanted to know was if Win7 even has a "cmd.exe" (Command Interpreter), and, if
so, were there any major differences / limitations?
But, my experience with Vista *is* very limited, so thanks 4 the info.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Gerard Bok" <bok...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4a85e67e...@News.Individual.NET...
rebel
>The links you posted referred to Vista [Win6]
>
>What I wanted to know was if Win7 even has a "cmd.exe" (Command Interpreter), and, if
>so, were there any major differences / limitations?
>
>But, my experience with Vista *is* very limited, so thanks 4 the info.
My son has MS Technet subscription, and has played extensively with Win7 RC1,
RC2 and now the RTM. He confirms the widely circulated descriptions of Win7 as
"Vista as it should have been" and "Vista finally". Without asking him - but I
can if you like - I would suspect it is like vista's cmd.exe.
rebel
>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:04:05 +0100, "Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>>The links you posted referred to Vista [Win6]
>>
>>What I wanted to know was if Win7 even has a "cmd.exe" (Command Interpreter), and, if
>>so, were there any major differences / limitations?
>>
>>But, my experience with Vista *is* very limited, so thanks 4 the info.
>
>My son has MS Technet subscription, and has played extensively with Win7 RC1,
>RC2 and now the RTM. He confirms the widely circulated descriptions of Win7 as
>"Vista as it should have been" and "Vista finally". Without asking him - but I
>can if you like - I would suspect it is like vista's cmd.exe.
Corrected - Beta, RC, and RTM versions.
"All have cmd.exe - as far as I can tell are the same as vista and XP
(features/fuctionality). Win7 also comes with PowerShell (optional in Vista), a
cmd.exe alternative."
His typing.
Tim Meddick
to.
Thankyou for the added information (that Win7's cmd.exe is comparable to Vista's) and
for the links in the previous posts...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"rebel" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6tqf8556emmq96u0p...@4ax.com...
A. David Garza Marín
news:OWIMWFSH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Gerard,
> Do you know what the Command Interpreter is like in Win7,
> relative to XP?
>
> Many of my old [pure] DOS utilities (inc. qbasic) work quite well under
> XP's edition of "cmd.exe"...
Not necesarily true when you're using x64 operating systems. With x64 you'll
not be able to run ANY 16-bit program (this includes Visual Basic 6, 'cause
its installer is 16-bit based). The resolution is to use a virtualizer. I
could recommend Sun's VirtualBox (www.virtualbox.org) or DOSBox
(www.dosbox.com). Both are free, although VirtualBox requires the use of a
separate operating system (like FreeDOS or MS-DOS) to be installed in a
virtual machine to achieve the results. I installed Windows XP x32 in
VirtualBox and this fixed almost any of my problems with Windows Vista x64
regarding 16-bit based software (like VB-DOS and Visual Basic 4 16-bit).
My 5c.
--
From the guts of progralogics and mechatronics
Tron.BAS
JamesJ
James
"rebel" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6tqf8556emmq96u0p...@4ax.com...
Tom Lake
"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:uw0mXfBJ...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Can I run old dos games in this??
If you have the 32-bit version of Win 7 then many games will run.
If you have the 64-bit version, You'll need either DosBox or a Win 7 virtual
machine (free download from MS) to run 16-bit DOS games.
Tom Lake
BC Associates Mgmt Consultants
Thanks for your reply.
We did perform the testing with the program (written in foxpro) in dos with
your suggestion listed below and
the program runs perfectly ok. However, will there be any unexpected or
hidden issues/problems?
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Jen
"Gerard Bok" <bok...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4a85419...@News.Individual.NET...
Valeria Dal Monte
thks
"BC Associates Mgmt Consultants" <bci...@singnet.com.sg> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:76838999-1166-4818...@microsoft.com...
HenkSWT
I was very surprised at Windows 7.
First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win XP (7),
Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in 64base.
Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
Who can help me...
Henk Siewert
----------------------------------------------------
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Uh, Vista Win 6?
>I was very surprised at Windows 7.
>First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win XP (7),
>Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
>I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in 64base.
>Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
>Who can help me...
Nobody.
Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
AFAIK:
WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
W2K is 5.
I think XP is 5.1
--
ArarghMail911 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Tom Lake
"HenkSWT" <Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F3A0561B-4C5B-4110...@microsoft.com...
> Uh, Vista Win 6?
> I was very surprised at Windows 7.
> First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win XP
> (7),
> Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
> I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in
> 64base.
> Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
> Who can help me...
> Henk Siewert
MS considers Win 3.x to be the first really viable mass-market version so
maybe they count from there.
Tom Lake
RobertVA
The "System Information" utility in my Windows XP SP2 indicates the
version as "5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600". Apparently Vista is
6.xx and the current Windows version is 7.xx
RobertVA
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:36:01 -0800, HenkSWT
> <Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Uh, Vista Win 6?
>> I was very surprised at Windows 7.
>> First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win XP (7),
>> Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
>> I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in 64base.
>> Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
>> Who can help me...
> Nobody.
>
> Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
> Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
>
> AFAIK:
> WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
> WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
> W2K is 5.
> I think XP is 5.1
Note that Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98 and ME are considered a different
sequence of Windows operating system products (Win 9x) than NT, 2000,
XP, Vista and 7. Windows XP superseded Windows 2000, which in turn
superseded Windows NT. The NT line was the professional line of
operating systems while Windows 9x and ME were the "Home" sequence.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
True. Doesn't affect the stupid numbering, though. :-)
Klaus Meinhard
>> Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
>> Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
>>
>> AFAIK:
>> WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
>> WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
>> W2K is 5.
>> I think XP is 5.1
NT, XP Vista and Windows 7 are all NT-based Operating Systems, and their
numbering is rational: after NT4 cam XP (5), Vista (6) and now Windows
7. XP, Vista are marketing names.
> Note that Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98 and ME are considered a different
> sequence of Windows operating system products (Win 9x) than NT, 2000,
> XP, Vista and 7. Windows XP superseded Windows 2000, which in turn
> superseded Windows NT. The NT line was the professional line of
> operating systems while Windows 9x and ME were the "Home" sequence.
That was their target market. The difference is that they were
completely different Operating Systems: Note that Windows 1, 2, 3, 95,
98 and ME are all DOS based systems, with a real 16-bit DOS running at
boot-time, this DOS being a direct descendant of earlier stand-alones
DOS versions (with 6.22 as their latest, IIRC) running up to MS-DOS
7.nn.
--
Best Regards,
* Klaus Meinhard *
<www.4dos.info>
Auric__
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:36:01 -0800, HenkSWT
> <Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>Uh, Vista Win 6?
>>I was very surprised at Windows 7.
>>First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win
>>XP (7), Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
>>I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in
>>64base. Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
>>Who can help me...
> Nobody.
>
> Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
> Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
>
> AFAIK:
> WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
> WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
NT4 & 95 = 4.0. 98 = 4.1. ME = 4.9. (IIRC, the DOS underneath ME was 8.0.)
> W2K is 5.
> I think XP is 5.1
Yes. Vista is v6, Win7 is v6.1.
--
Your suffering will free you.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:29 GMT, Arargh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:36:01 -0800, HenkSWT
>> <Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh, Vista Win 6?
>>>I was very surprised at Windows 7.
>>>First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win
>>>XP (7), Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
>>>I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in
>>>64base. Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
>>>Who can help me...
>> Nobody.
>>
>> Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
>> Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
>>
>> AFAIK:
>> WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
>> WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
>
>NT4 & 95 = 4.0. 98 = 4.1. ME = 4.9. (IIRC, the DOS underneath ME was 8.0.)
Yes, I think so. 95s DOS was 7.0, 98 was 7.1
>
>> W2K is 5.
>> I think XP is 5.1
>
>Yes. Vista is v6, Win7 is v6.1.
Still doesn't say much for MSs numbering systems. :-)
Their tools and apps have some of the same problems, number wise.
Auric__
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:46:06 GMT, "Auric__"
> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:29 GMT, Arargh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:36:01 -0800, HenkSWT
>>> <Hen...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Uh, Vista Win 6?
>>>>I was very surprised at Windows 7.
>>>>First there was Windows 1, 2, 3, Win95 (4), Win 98 (5),Win ME (6), Win
>>>>XP (7), Vista (8) and Windows 7 (9).
>>>>I can count in Binary, Octal, Hex en a lot of other systems, even in
>>>>64base. Yes I am that old... But I am lost in counting in Windows.
>>>>Who can help me...
>>> Nobody.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has no sense of consistency with regard to version numbers.
>>> Probably some fool in marketing is to blame.
>>>
>>> AFAIK:
Forgot NT3.1. I have a copy, but have never been able to get it to install.
>>> WinNT3.5 is 3.5.
>>> WinNT4, Win95, Win 98,Win ME are all 4.
>>
>>NT4 & 95 = 4.0. 98 = 4.1. ME = 4.9. (IIRC, the DOS underneath ME was
>>8.0.)
> Yes, I think so. 95s DOS was 7.0, 98 was 7.1
Someone pointed out to me some years ago in some DOS group that 7.1 was
Win95 OSR2 (I think), when they introduced FAT32. (My reply was along the
lines of "I think a new file system should justify increasing the major
version number.")
>>> W2K is 5.
>>> I think XP is 5.1
>>
>>Yes. Vista is v6, Win7 is v6.1.
>
> Still doesn't say much for MSs numbering systems. :-)
Even less, since "Windows 7" is really "Windows 6.1". I wish they'd make up
their minds.
> Their tools and apps have some of the same problems, number wise.
Reminds me of when I bought MS Visual Everything v5 -- the packaging called
it DevStudio 98.
--
Don't remember where I was when I realized life is a game.
The more seriously I took things, the harder the rules became.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
Correct.
>lines of "I think a new file system should justify increasing the major
>version number.")
XP had (I think) a little more than just a new file system, but it
only rated .1 more than W2K. Still right back to:
"Still doesn't say much for MSs numbering systems. :-)"
>
>>>> W2K is 5.
>>>> I think XP is 5.1
>>>
>>>Yes. Vista is v6, Win7 is v6.1.
>>
>> Still doesn't say much for MSs numbering systems. :-)
>
>Even less, since "Windows 7" is really "Windows 6.1". I wish they'd make up
>their minds.
>
>> Their tools and apps have some of the same problems, number wise.
>
>Reminds me of when I bought MS Visual Everything v5 -- the packaging called
>it DevStudio 98.
--
furkan kalkan
"Valeria Dal Monte" <pr...@microsoft.com>, haber iletisinde �unlar�
yazd�:O42PQOxR...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
hi my friend if u use windows vista or windows 7 DOS graphic programs dont
work !
peace101
"BC Associates Mgmt Consultants" wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Will there be any issues/problems when running dos program in Year 2010
> because there is news
> circulating around that DOS programs will not recognise the year 2010?
>
> Thanks!
> Regards,
> Jen
>
well, according to my watch, it gots 2 days left.
Auric__
> "BC Associates Mgmt Consultants" wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Will there be any issues/problems when running dos program in Year
>> 2010
>> because there is news
>> circulating around that DOS programs will not recognise the year
>> 2010?
>
> well, according to my watch, it gots 2 days left.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the *best* solutions: if DOS has issues
on Friday, set your computer's clock back a year or 20.
--
Lately my "get up and go" has changed to "piss off."