Windows ME - The End Of UMSDOS And BeOSfs Over Vfat?

Juan Rojo writes: "I recently got a copy of Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (which is suppossed to be the next generation of the Windows 9x series, supposed to mantain 'backwards' compatibility with older versions. In them all the ports and memory access are unprotected). I was really surprised that "pure" DOS access was simply removed. You can't enter into pure DOS in any way. No more 'Command Prompt' option when pressing F8 at the startup.. No more 'Shutdown to MSdos' and no more shorcuts to DOS mode. I even tried removing the Windows directory and it crashes at the startup instead of going back to a DOS prompt (like Win98 or 95). The only possible way seems to be booting from a disk with a Win98 DOS kernel installed. This seems to be a serious problem for UMSDOS based unix distros, for the BeOSfs that runs over Vfat and even for using LoadLin, which many users still may need. I wonder if Microsoft did this on purpose.. or if they have some 'excuse' about it." That doesn't sound very "backwards" compatible to me either. Considering the source, is anyone really surprised?

Re:I can understand this

I'm no Windows expert, but maybe the conspiracy loving maniacs are wrong this time.

Afaik they killed dos because
- The luser doesn't need it, and the power user should use Win2000 in their view.
- The quickstartup shutdown feature is incompatible with the normal dos booting way.

Also maybe there is some util on the CD for real users to tweak things so that an dos prompt remains an option

Re:What's Wrong With This Picture

There's *no good reason* for F8 not to allow a DOS session to start up. Yes, there's a good reason for DOS not to load when Windows is loading--but from a pure troubleshooting point of view, access to the core filesystem is inordinately useful for system repair and there is no benefit to the customer for such functionality to be removed.

Consider: many new motherboards have no ISA slots, and soon the ISA bus will be completely removed on all new motherboards. Does this benefit the consumer? What about consumers who have ISA modems? The answer is, yes, it benefits the consumer in the long term, at the expense of a minor inconvenience in the short term. Once everyone has switched completely over to PCI and USB, we can start using motherboards that have no ISA bus (not just no ISA slots, but no PS/2 ports, no floppy drives, and no other devices that still run on the ISA bus). This leads to a more efficient design, which gives us faster, cheaper, more efficient motherboards - and that benefits everyone.

It's sad, really. This is yet another example of Microsoft's technological achievements(successful migration of the PC industry from DOS/Win16 to Win32, excavation and elimination of DOS legacy code) being marred by the relentless drive of their business side to quell competition.

Wait a minute - what? you're saying moving from DOS/Win16 to Win32 is a good thing, and yet removing DOS is a bad thing? Think about this for a moment.

DOS is not just a lower operating system--it's a basic environment that can be entirely overwritten by whatever code happens to run underneath it. Much has been said about the ability to run alternative operating systems being quelled by this design; the faults generated are actually much more devious.

So, DOS doesn't completely control your system; rather, it lets other software do whatever it wants. This quells the ability to run alternative operating systems? That makes absolutely no sense. This design is what makes LOADLIN possible - LOADLIN can completely remove DOS, and replace it with something else, while the system is still running.

DOS lets the user replace anything with everything; under the Windows model, Microsoft holds the final say on what calls you're allowed to issue, what memory you may rewrite, what partitions you may generate.

Wow, that sounds remarkably like UNIX. Applications can't directly muck around in hardware (unless they're running with root permissions, in which case the OS selectively grants them access).

Even the simple requirement to rewrite applications such as Partition Magic in full Win32 code--and that's presuming a hard drive partitioner could be allowed to function through the API--at minimum makes the code much less portable across OS's, and gives Microsoft leverage over yet another critical element of system configurations.

Hmm, making software companies rewrite old applications that require a backwards-compatibility layer so that they're more efficient and work better is a bad thing? Windows NT is 32-bit only, and is much more stable than Win98, so Microsoft wants to migrate everything to NT. The more 16-bit apps that get rewritten as 32-bit apps, the more likely this plan is to succeed.

This isn't just about Microsoft making it harder for their users to run alternative operating systems; it's about Microsoft closing off direct access to a user's own system to the point of forcing the OS to crash before giving the user a command prompt.

Uhhh, who said anything about forcing the OS to crash? Where the hell did that come from? And by the way, someone else pointed out that you can still get to a command prompt by (surprise!) opening a command prompt window.

--

Shocking

My definition of backward compatibility does not include working with older versions of OTHER PEOPLE'S software. Nor does it include 'working in exactly the same way as the old version'. Or even 'keeping certain boot procedures the same so that other entirely unrelated 3rd party software works the same way as it used to.'

This IS NOT a backward compatibility issue.

Re:Shocking

It is not the job of one OS to play nice with another, any more than it is the job of one program to play nice with the other.

In the case of programs, the OS (or kernel) mediates between them, and stops them trampling on each other's memory etc.

In the case of OSes, it should really be up to the firmware/hardware/BIOS to enforce rules for OSes on one machine to behave well, by hiding them from each other.

What's Wrong With This Picture

DOS should not be loading before Windows.

It shouldn't, I'm happy it's not, it's excellent that they've pulled out yet another layer of headaches, huzzah.

The problem--and it's a real one--is that they're preventing DOS from loading at all.

There's *no good reason* for F8 not to allow a DOS session to start up. Yes, there's a good reason for DOS not to load when Windows is loading--but from a pure troubleshooting point of view, access to the core filesystem is inordinately useful for system repair and there is no benefit to the customer for such functionality to be removed.

It's sad, really. This is yet another example of Microsoft's technological achievements(successful migration of the PC industry from DOS/Win16 to Win32, excavation and elimination of DOS legacy code) being marred by the relentless drive of their business side to quell competition. DOS is not just a lower operating system--it's a basic environment that can be entirely overwritten by whatever code happens to run underneath it. Much has been said about the ability to run alternative operating systems being quelled by this design; the faults generated are actually much more devious. DOS lets the user replace anything with everything; under the Windows model, Microsoft holds the final say on what calls you're allowed to issue, what memory you may rewrite, what partitions you may generate. Even the simple requirement to rewrite applications such as Partition Magic in full Win32 code--and that's presuming a hard drive partitioner could be allowed to function through the API--at minimum makes the code much less portable across OS's, and gives Microsoft leverage over yet another critical element of system configurations.

The philosophy of the DVD contracts was to achieve restrictions over consumers in excess of what the law would impose by preventing any vendor from being able to legally provide entire realms of fair use functionality to consumers. By doing an end run around the law, the studios hoped to effectively reverse entire swaths of public policy. Considering the anticompetitive and intrusive charges against Microsoft, this code extraction is similarly an end run around the technological capability of the generally open PC platform to run operating systems and environments other than those prescribed by Microsoft.

I don't like it, I'm not happy, and I do believe formal complaints should be issued in this circumstance. This isn't just about Microsoft making it harder for their users to run alternative operating systems; it's about Microsoft closing off direct access to a user's own system to the point of forcing the OS to crash before giving the user a command prompt.

Crashing is not a feature.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Interesting ...

... will DosEmu be ported to Win ME?

Re:Stupid Stupid Stupid

Well, there's a simple solution to this. Don't upgrade to ME. Problem solved.

bull -- still runs on top of command.com

I've taken a look at a WinME beta, and command.com is still there, it still runs on top of it, you can still start the ms-dos prompt from inside windows, it's just you can't get the dos prompt by itself. They've gone out of their way to turn that off.

--

Jesus, people

I wish I'd have seen this when it was fresh. Perhaps my comments could have made it to the top. The person who submitted this to slashdot is *obviously* not a MS beta tester, or else he would have known the answer to his own gripe. Thus he probably has "secured" his copy illegally and even though it IS microsoft, I don't think he has any room to gripe. 1) WinME is the (purportedly) final step towards bringing consumer windows (3.1/95/98) into sync with the NT kernel (3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000) With this comes the obvious (and necessary) absolution of the GUI as essentially an application on top of DOS. DOS applications run in VM's just like in NT and OS/2. 2) The filesystem is the same FAT32 we've always had access to. If you boot to DOS (more on this later) you will have access to all the files. WinME *DOES NOT BREAK* the vfat or usmsdos filesystem drivers!!!! 3) WinME uses the NT Bootloader *WHICH CAN BOOT DOS, LINUX, AND BEOS FROM NATIVE PARTITIONS!!!!!* or it can boot seperate windows/dos versions from the same partition. Seen the 98/2000 dual boot configs? How about a 98/ME/2000/Linux running all off of one VFAT partition. It's not that difficult! I cant honestly believe that this thing was posted (boy there is always someone to make that same complaint every article isnt there?). Windows was never supposed to BE dos. Ever. Now that they've finally seperated the two, complaining "I can't boot DOS!!!" is totally idiodic and stupid. It's not the same OS, for god's sake. If you want to boot DOS, install DOS! I should also note that there *is* a recovery command prompt in WinME (It's also there in Win2K) where you can boot up to a 32bit command prompt and run Win32 CLI binaries without having to fire up a GUI. This is the same interface that Embedded NT and Embedded Windows2000 use when you don't need/use GUI support. ~GoRK

Re:Nonsense guys

The entire Win32s for Windows 3.1 and Windows 4.x series (95, 98, 98SE, ME) has existed for one purpose: get all applications replaced by Win32 versions and migrate everyone to NT.

The original intent of Win32s and Windows 95 might have been to be a stepping stone to NT, but Microsoft has been strangely really lax about the execution. They've almost purpously kept NT out of the mainstream market by keeping things like Plug'n'Play, USB support, and DirectX on the shelf for 3 to 4 years after the 9x folks got it.

I wonder if this is a situation similar to Apple in the 1980s, where the "Apple II forever" people kept the lineup on the market for years past the point where it was competitive. It's almost as if iinternal forces inside Microsoft are conspiring to keep the 95/98/ME line going, and when upper management looks at the revenue figures, they can't argue.

Don't forget, these guys have a monopoly on the desktop. If they wanted the world to run the NT kernel, they could get us there. Instead, they want to treat Windows 2000 as an upsell and continually pedddling crap like Windows ME. The sell of Windows 95 was "Just like NT, except with backwards compatibility". But now the sell of ME seems to be "Just like 98, except without the backwards compability". Bizarre.
--

I can understand this

It makes sense. I don't LIKE it, but it makes sense. MS has been promising to make DOS a thing of the past since 3.1, they've just finally delivered. No more legacy 8 and 16 bit processes should mean more stability. Would you be the one to say that Windows doesn't need all the stability it can get?

As I said, I don't like it, I prefer to do half my work CLI style, but I've seen it coming for 6 years now.

OHMIGOD!

<SARCASM>
OHMIGOD, Microsoft has finally lived up to a promise from many years ago and removed support for MSDOS? Those bastards!
</SARCASM>

This is about a non-story if I ever heard one. On the one hand, MS is blasted by the non-MS community for maintaining legacy 16-bit code. Then, when finally cutting it free, the same community suddenly realizes that they've been benefitting from the old 16-bit code and throws a hissy fit. You can't have it both ways.

All this really means is that people will need to keep old boot diskettes around, or perhaps look at creating a boot floppy using FreeDOS. If it doesn't work now with FreeDOS, I suspect that it could certainly be made to given the proper impetus. In any case, it hardly means the End Of UMSDOS And BeOSfs Over Vfat, as the title of the article suggests.

---

Re:Funny, but...

Where is it said that Microsoft abandoned the prompt? You can still use the prompt in Windows ME. You can still run console applications in Windows ME. What you cannot do, is boot straight to MS-DOS, because it doesn't exist as an operating system on its own. You need to run console-based (and DOS) applications from a shell-window inside Windows ME.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

It is still there

Windows ME will still have DOS compatibility. To get rid of DOS would mean to re-write Windows (ala NT). There was an article in PC Magazine or Smart Computing or something I read that said there was a way (undocumented of course) to get to DOS mode. Microsoft is most likley doing this so they can create an illusion of having DOS gone so they can get people used to the "no dos" design of there upcoming OS that will merge Win 9x and NT (2000).
Of course that is just my opinion

Nonsense guys

Guys, you're being absurd. They announced two years ago that they would be removing DOS mode. In fact, they had planned on doing so for Win98, but needed to maintain it for one more edition.

The entire Win32s for Windows 3.1 and Windows 4.x series (95, 98, 98SE, ME) has existed for one purpose: get all applications replaced by Win32 versions and migrate everyone to NT.

This is not a hidden agenda. Gates talked about this in the EARLY 90s ('92 or '93). Back then WinCE was referred to as modular windows, Chicago was Windows 4.0, etc.

None of this is secret. None of this is aimed at killing Linux. This is aimmed at killing DOS applications that won't run in a NT VDM. Those applications are the enemy, not Linux. They prevent MS from killing the DOS legacy and moving everyone to NT.

Right now, MS is saddled by that compatibility and limits their products ability to work. There is a world of difference between NT 3.51/4.0/5.0(W2K) and Win3.1/95/98 (can't say for me) in terms of stability, etc.

They keep migrating to new driver models that were more similar to the NT ones to improve stability and make the migration easier (more driver support for NT).

This isn't aimed at Linux, it is aimed at helping MS make a better OS.

Alex

And here it is...

From the ZDNET review. [zdnet.com]

"Officially, Microsoft says you can boot to the real-mode command prompt only from the Emergency Boot Disk, which may leave too little memory free for running BIOS-flashing and similar programs that run only from the command prompt. Unofficially, Microsoft insiders told us to create a minimal bootable floppy disk by copying Io.sys and Command.com from the WindowsCommandEBD folder to a blank formatted disk."

=======================
Enlightenment is a Trap

Re:Ok, probably a dumb question

You can still run DOS applications inside Windows ME (ie: as a window or full screen), but you just can't reboot the machine to a "pure" DOS prompt. If you have a boot floppy made with a previous version of DOS/Window9x, then you can get to a real DOS prompt that way. Also keep in mind that your config.sys and autoexec.bat are not parsed anymore either. Windows ME still has the dependence on the DOS underlyings and DOS really have not been completely removed, but the ability to easily access real-mode DOS has simply been made difficult. The primary purpose of doing this is to further enforce the movement of device drivers away from old style config.sys "DEVICE=" lines and various TSRs for supporting hardware and towards natively written 32-bit drivers. Such 32-bit drivers will generally be easier to port forward to future versions of Windows based on NT (Win2k and future) if those manufacturers don't already support NT. A side benefit is that native 32-bit drivers in Windows ME will generally be easier for users to configure and adapt to hardware changes (such as power state or docking changes). For example, being able to use native 32-bit network drivers instead of 16-bit DOS IPXODI/VLM drivers generally will have a tremendous boost in performance and usability. Switching from a 16-bit DOS CDROM SYS driver with MSCDEX to a fully native will generally not only be faster, but will allow access to long filenames. Although it is true that systems with older, no-longer supported hardware may still depend on DOS-mode TSRs or SYS drivers and may not be able to get updated drivers, Windows ME is not intended to be a general purpose upgrade for all older systems. Going forward, the next consumer OS after Windows ME will be based on NT and will have even more dramatic legacy hardware support issues, since many older manufacturers have neglected to support NT at all.

Double Standards

To be fair you are being just a little hard on Microsoft here.

I can see it now, if they had left dos in then the story would read "Microsofts 20th attempt at a graphical OS still relies on the command line".

Surely this is a step in the right direction and surely the linux/BeOS people can find a way round it.

After all winNT hasn't included a true dos for a heck of a long time and ultimately that is the model that the simultaneous windows versions are striving towards (slowly striving that is).