Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.

However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

John Williamson

2012-06-01 21:15:48 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

I normally kept mine in the C:\DOS directory, and made sure both it and
C:\$PROGDIR for all the programs were in the path. As long as all the
program locations were in the path, it didn't really matter where they were.

On a Toshiba laptop I had with DOS 3.3 in ROM when first booted from
new, it showed all the DOS commands in C:\, with everything else on D:\,
which was the Hard Drive, and the path was set to include D:\ by
default. This worked fine until you found a program which was hard coded
only to run from the C: drive, then I had to copy the contents of the
ROM onto the HD, and disable the ROM in the BIOS, losing about half a
megabyte of the 10 megabyte HD. I've still got the Toshiba DOS 6.xx
extensions on floppy somewhere, along with install floppies for all
MS-DOS versions except DOS 4.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-02 04:11:31 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

Yeah, I know it was always available in the path, but was there a
default directory created to hold these commands? For some reason I'm
thinking that there may have been a C:\SYS or SYSTEM folder or
something? Or were they all placed into C:\ the root directory?

Yousuf Khan

John Williamson

2012-06-02 07:00:33 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

IME, the closest to a default was C:\DOS. Hold on a second, I'll check.

<Sounds of distant rummaging.> <Sounds of cursing as many crates are
lifted and moved.> <Finds and starts DOS 5 based Toshiba T3200mains
powered "portable".> <Lights throughout the area go dim as the EGA
orange plasma screen lights up.>

Blimey, it still works. Now *there's* a blast from the past. Tasword...

Yup. C:\DOS on the default DOS 5.0 installation, with Windows 3.0 in
C:\WINDOWS, and the extra Toshiba goodies in C:\TOSHIBA.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-04 13:24:58 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I

[]

Post by David H. Lipman
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

IME, the closest to a default was C:\DOS. Hold on a second, I'll check.

I'll second that.

Post by John Williamson
<Sounds of distant rummaging.> <Sounds of cursing as many crates are
lifted and moved.> <Finds and starts DOS 5 based Toshiba T3200mains
powered "portable".> <Lights throughout the area go dim as the EGA
orange plasma screen lights up.>

Loved the description!

Post by John Williamson
Blimey, it still works. Now *there's* a blast from the past. Tasword...

Indeed - though I don't remember what it was: a word processor?

Post by John Williamson
Yup. C:\DOS on the default DOS 5.0 installation, with Windows 3.0 in
C:\WINDOWS, and the extra Toshiba goodies in C:\TOSHIBA.

Post by Yousuf Khan
Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

John Williamson

2012-06-04 16:05:27 UTC

Loved the description!

<Bows> :-)

Post by John Williamson
Blimey, it still works. Now *there's* a blast from the past. Tasword...

Indeed - though I don't remember what it was: a word processor?

It was. I assume it would still work, if I had an Epson compatible
printer to go with the computer. I've also got a copy of Borland Sprint
which should still install, assuming the floppies are okay, which was my
preferred DOS wordprocessor.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

David H. Lipman

2012-06-02 10:04:25 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which weren't built
into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

Yeah, I know it was always available in the path, but was there a default directory
created to hold these commands? For some reason I'm thinking that there may have been a
C:\SYS or SYSTEM folder or something? Or were they all placed into C:\ the root
directory?
Yousuf Khan

They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 16:51:01 UTC

Post by David H. Lipman
They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

Depends on the storage media which was never mentioned. For example, a
360KB 5.25" floppy has 7 sectors allocated to the FAT, sectors are 512
bytes in size, and each entry (file or directory) consumes 32 bytes in
the FAT, so that floppy can hold 112 entries:

7 sectors * 512 bytes/sector / 32 bytes/entry = 112 entries

Summary of maximum entry count for MS/PC-DOS (root folder only):
8" 250 KB floppy: 68
8" 500 KB floppy: 68
8" 1.2 MB floppy: 192
5.25" 180 KB floppy: 64
5.25" 360 KB floppy: 112
5.25" 1.2 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 720 KB floppy: 112
3.5" 1.44 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 2.88 MB floppy: 240
3.5" 1.68 MB DMF floppy: 16 (*)
Hard disks FAT12/16/32: 512

(*) Microsoft apps were often distributed using these hence the need to
invent CAB files to deliver a larger number of files.

Not all media formats are listed above. Many more are listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk but I wasn't going to waste
time to check what were they max entry count in the root folder. For an
alternate listing of "Root dir entries" on media size, read
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131.

If long filenames are supported then the max count goes down due to use
of more bytes per entry in the FAT to store the alternate long name.

MS-DOS 2.0 introduced directories that could hold a lot more files and
[sub]directories: 4068 for FAT12, 64K for FAT16, 268,173,300 for FAT32
(using the default cluster sizes). That didn't alleviate the maximum
entry count in the root folder.

Are we having fun yet roaming down reminiscence lane?

David H. Lipman

2012-06-02 19:42:19 UTC

Post by David H. Lipman
They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

Depends on the storage media which was never mentioned. For example, a
360KB 5.25" floppy has 7 sectors allocated to the FAT, sectors are 512
bytes in size, and each entry (file or directory) consumes 32 bytes in
7 sectors * 512 bytes/sector / 32 bytes/entry = 112 entries
8" 250 KB floppy: 68
8" 500 KB floppy: 68
8" 1.2 MB floppy: 192
5.25" 180 KB floppy: 64
5.25" 360 KB floppy: 112
5.25" 1.2 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 720 KB floppy: 112
3.5" 1.44 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 2.88 MB floppy: 240
3.5" 1.68 MB DMF floppy: 16 (*)
Hard disks FAT12/16/32: 512
(*) Microsoft apps were often distributed using these hence the need to
invent CAB files to deliver a larger number of files.
Not all media formats are listed above. Many more are listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk but I wasn't going to waste
time to check what were they max entry count in the root folder. For an
alternate listing of "Root dir entries" on media size, read
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131.
If long filenames are supported then the max count goes down due to use
of more bytes per entry in the FAT to store the alternate long name.
MS-DOS 2.0 introduced directories that could hold a lot more files and
[sub]directories: 4068 for FAT12, 64K for FAT16, 268,173,300 for FAT32
(using the default cluster sizes). That didn't alleviate the maximum
entry count in the root folder.
Are we having fun yet roaming down reminiscence lane?

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

Thanx for the data correction.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Gene E. Bloch

2012-06-02 23:08:55 UTC

Post by David H. Lipman
They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

Depends on the storage media which was never mentioned. For example, a
360KB 5.25" floppy has 7 sectors allocated to the FAT, sectors are 512
bytes in size, and each entry (file or directory) consumes 32 bytes in
7 sectors * 512 bytes/sector / 32 bytes/entry = 112 entries
8" 250 KB floppy: 68
8" 500 KB floppy: 68
8" 1.2 MB floppy: 192
5.25" 180 KB floppy: 64
5.25" 360 KB floppy: 112
5.25" 1.2 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 720 KB floppy: 112
3.5" 1.44 MB floppy: 224
3.5" 2.88 MB floppy: 240
3.5" 1.68 MB DMF floppy: 16 (*)
Hard disks FAT12/16/32: 512
(*) Microsoft apps were often distributed using these hence the need to
invent CAB files to deliver a larger number of files.
Not all media formats are listed above. Many more are listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk but I wasn't going to waste
time to check what were they max entry count in the root folder. For an
alternate listing of "Root dir entries" on media size, read
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131.
If long filenames are supported then the max count goes down due to use
of more bytes per entry in the FAT to store the alternate long name.
MS-DOS 2.0 introduced directories that could hold a lot more files and
[sub]directories: 4068 for FAT12, 64K for FAT16, 268,173,300 for FAT32
(using the default cluster sizes). That didn't alleviate the maximum
entry count in the root folder.
Are we having fun yet roaming down reminiscence lane?

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

Groan!

Can't say that I miss that aspect of things.

Post by David H. Lipman
Thanx for the data correction.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Ant

2012-06-03 03:54:22 UTC

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat,
etc. :D
--
"When you need a helpline for breakfast cereals, it's time to start
thinking about tearing down civilization and giving the ants a go."
--Chris King in a.s.r.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant

2012-06-03 03:55:49 UTC

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat,
etc. :D

Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? ;)

--
"An ant is a wise creature for itself, but it is a shrewd thing in an
orchard or garden." --Francis Bacon
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

2012-06-03 06:28:34 UTC

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat,
etc. :D

Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? ;)

I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 06:50:29 UTC

Post by DK

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat,
etc. :D

Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? ;)

I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.

Yousuf Khan

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-04 13:20:56 UTC

Post by DK

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat,
etc. :D

Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? ;)

I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.
Yousuf Khan

Basically, it put all your files into one file, didn't it? So you could
lose it/them all at once if that file got corrupted. And yet, people
continue to use email (and possibly news) software that does that (for
emails), ...

Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Post by DK
Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-04 18:28:21 UTC

Post by DK
I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.
Yousuf Khan

Yup, not that I knew that at the time when first installing it. I just
assumed that Microsoft knew what it was doing when it created DoubleSpace.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Thunderbird keeps all of its newsgroup messages in separate files. But
email is kept in a single file.

Yousuf Khan

John Williamson

2012-06-04 20:40:44 UTC

Post by DK
I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.
Yousuf Khan

Yup, not that I knew that at the time when first installing it. I just
assumed that Microsoft knew what it was doing when it created DoubleSpace.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Thunderbird keeps all of its newsgroup messages in separate files. But
email is kept in a single file.

To be picky, Thunderbird keeps each e-mail folder in a pair of files.
the $mailboxname.sdb file is a container for the messages, and the .msf
file contains info about those messages.

So, if you have a folder in the inbox per sender, then there is a file
pair per sender.

Newsgroups are similar, but there is also an extra file per server,
telling TB which groups are on that server.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-04 21:25:33 UTC

Post by DK
I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.
Yousuf Khan

Yup, not that I knew that at the time when first installing it. I just
assumed that Microsoft knew what it was doing when it created DoubleSpace.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Thunderbird keeps all of its newsgroup messages in separate files. But
email is kept in a single file.

To be picky, Thunderbird keeps each e-mail folder in a pair of files.
the $mailboxname.sdb file is a container for the messages, and the .msf
file contains info about those messages.
So, if you have a folder in the inbox per sender, then there is a file
pair per sender.
Newsgroups are similar, but there is also an extra file per server,
telling TB which groups are on that server.

Thanks, interesting.

So it _still_ isn't keeping _individual emails_ (or news posts) in
individual files, so several (possibly many) can be lost if a single
file is corrupted.

(Not that, AFAIK, _any_ email/news client does. Unless maybe a DOS or
possibly a Linux/Unix one.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Herman Hollerith is buried 9 edge, face down.

Mortimer

2012-06-05 12:39:02 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Microsoft's Windows Mail (Vista) and Windows Live Mail (Win 7) store each
email message as a separate .eml file and each newsgroup message as a
separate .nws file, within filesystem folder/directory structures that match
the structure in the email program, apart from slight truncation of email
folder names when generating the corresponding filesystem folder name. It's
very useful to be able to edit or annotate .eml files (using a text
editor) - the only proviso is that you must not be looking at the message in
WM or WLM at the time (and it may be safer to close WM/WLM altogether).

The advantage of one-file-per-email is that you can edit messages and that
file corruption affects only one message. The advantage of Outlook Express's
(and Outlook's) approach is that it is quicker to search one .dbx file per
email folder or one .pst file for all emails than it is to open and search
many .eml files.

Post by Yousuf Khan
Thunderbird keeps all of its newsgroup messages in separate files. But
email is kept in a single file.

To be picky, Thunderbird keeps each e-mail folder in a pair of files. the
$mailboxname.sdb file is a container for the messages, and the .msf file
contains info about those messages.
So, if you have a folder in the inbox per sender, then there is a file
pair per sender.
Newsgroups are similar, but there is also an extra file per server,
telling TB which groups are on that server.

Thanks, interesting.
So it _still_ isn't keeping _individual emails_ (or news posts) in
individual files, so several (possibly many) can be lost if a single file
is corrupted.
(Not that, AFAIK, _any_ email/news client does. Unless maybe a DOS or
possibly a Linux/Unix one.)

See above...

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-05 13:11:24 UTC

Post by Mortimer

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Thanks for the info.! I _am_ surprised. (I'd not looked closely at the
"Live" offerings, as I felt they assumed an always-on connection and
smelt rather of the cloud [the name does, for a start], but maybe I
should.)

Post by Mortimer
The advantage of one-file-per-email is that you can edit messages and
that file corruption affects only one message. The advantage of Outlook

That is certainly my view - especially the corruption side.

Post by Mortimer
Express's (and Outlook's) approach is that it is quicker to search one
.dbx file per email folder or one .pst file for all emails than it is
to open and search many .eml files.

I guess that's why (especially in the days of slower processors and,
especially, discs) things evolved to be mostly that way.
[]
Now howabout a news client that keeps separate files (-:?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited (***@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

Mortimer

2012-06-05 13:18:29 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Now howabout a news client that keeps separate files (-:?

Windows Mail and Windows Live Mail use separate .nws files for each
newsgroup message.

R. C. White

2012-06-05 15:07:03 UTC

Hi, John.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that stores
each email as a separate real file? (In real folders/directories?)

Yes! As pointed out by Mortimer a few posts down...

Windows Mail, OE's successor that was integrated into Windows Vista over 5
years ago, discarded OE's All-In-One humongous DBX file approach and
introduced a new scheme. Other more-techie users can describe the details
better than I can, but in WM, each email message is saved in a separate .eml
file, and each newsgroup post in its own .nws file. Windows Live Mail
continues this new scheme.

A DBX file was very efficient use of storage: 1,000 messages of 1 K bytes
(including overhead) each would use only 1,000 KB on the disk. But, as you
noted, one bad bit in the 1 MB file could lose all 1,000 messages. In the
WM/WLM scheme, each of the 1,000 small files would take its own 4 KB
cluster, for a total of 4 MB, but one bad file would leave the other 999
messages unscathed. And, each message can be individually accessed and
edited by programs other than WM/WLM.

As I'm sure you know, OE was an integral part of WinXP/9x; WM was an
integral part of Vista; but Win7 contains NO mail or news app at all. WLM
was never an integral part of any Windows OS, but can be downloaded and
installed into WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and I'm now using it in the Win8 Release
Preview. (WinXP can run 2009 and prior versions of WLM, but not 2011. Some
users have installed WM into Win7, but that is not supported by Microsoft.)

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3555.0308) in Win8 (Release Preview)

Post by DK

Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys,
autoexec.bat,
etc. :D

Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? ;)

I do. Stacker was absolutely great!

But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one.
Yousuf Khan

Post by DK
Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see
you. -Richard

Mortimer

2012-06-05 16:29:44 UTC

Post by R. C. White
As I'm sure you know, OE was an integral part of WinXP/9x; WM was an
integral part of Vista; but Win7 contains NO mail or news app at all. WLM
was never an integral part of any Windows OS, but can be downloaded and
installed into WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and I'm now using it in the Win8 Release
Preview. (WinXP can run 2009 and prior versions of WLM, but not 2011.
Some users have installed WM into Win7, but that is not supported by
Microsoft.)

Every Windows 7 PC that I've seen has had Windows Live Mail already
installed. It may be that a lot of PC vendors who supply their PCs
pre-installed with Win 7 add it to the customised builds of Win 7 that they
install (along with manufacturer-specific bloatware that they "helpfully"
supply). I'm not sure about an installation from Microsoft's Win 7 CD.

Does anyone have any instructions which actually work for installing WM on
Win 7? I've seen instructions on various web sites but they assume that you
have the same "bitness" of Vista and Win 7, whereas most people have 32-bit
Vista and 64-bit Win 7. I still have a (32-bit) Vista PC that I could copy
the c:\program files folder from. I even found a site which claimed to have
instructions for running 32-bit WM on 64-bit Win 7, but they didn't work:
despite following the instructions to the letter, the exe file crashed (I
forget the precise details - it was a while ago).

The UI of WLM, especially the 2011 rather than 2009 version, with its ribbon
interface, is a real backward step and I wish I could go back to the UI of
WM.

R. C. White

2012-06-05 22:10:06 UTC

Hi, Mortimer.

Post by Mortimer
Every Windows 7 PC that I've seen has had Windows Live Mail already
installed. It may be that a lot of PC vendors who supply their PCs
pre-installed with Win 7 add it to the customised builds of Win 7 that
they install (along with manufacturer-specific bloatware that they
"helpfully" supply).

Right. MANY (most?) PC vendors add WLM to all the computers they sell with
Win7 pre-installed. But Microsoft does not do that.

Post by Mortimer
I'm not sure about an installation from Microsoft's Win 7 CD.

The Win7 CD does NOT contain WLM - or any other mail or news app.

As Microsoft says, you are free to install any mail/news app(s) that you
want, and many users do. Or you can download WLMail and any or all the
other "Windows Live Essentials" by simply going to this URL:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/windows-live-essentials

As you can see, the "Live Essentials" also include WL Messenger, Movie
Maker, Photo Gallery and others.

Post by Mortimer
The UI of WLM, especially the 2011 rather than 2009 version, with its
ribbon interface, is a real backward step and I wish I could go back to
the UI of WM.

The Ribbon UI definitely takes some getting used to! After about a year
with it, I'm comfy with it. But some of WLM's "features" are serious
drawbacks, especially the failure to properly quote the prior thread. I've
not seriously tried to use WM in Win7 (or Win8).

The transition to Win8 is going to be interesting! Win8 includes its own
Mail app, but it is much different from Windows Live Mail. Even here in
Win8 RP, I'm using WLM, not Win8's Mail. It's not clear yet whether that
will still be possible in the final version of Win8.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3555.0308) in Win8 (Release Preview)

Post by Mortimer
As I'm sure you know, OE was an integral part of WinXP/9x; WM was an
integral part of Vista; but Win7 contains NO mail or news app at all. WLM
was never an integral part of any Windows OS, but can be downloaded and
installed into WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and I'm now using it in the Win8 Release
Preview. (WinXP can run 2009 and prior versions of WLM, but not 2011.
Some users have installed WM into Win7, but that is not supported by
Microsoft.)

Ken Blake

2012-06-05 23:49:52 UTC

Post by R. C. White
The transition to Win8 is going to be interesting! Win8 includes its own
Mail app, but it is much different from Windows Live Mail. Even here in
Win8 RP, I'm using WLM, not Win8's Mail. It's not clear yet whether that
will still be possible in the final version of Win8.

RC, how did you get the >s in your reply? Did you add them manually?

R. C. White

2012-06-06 01:16:58 UTC

Hi, Ken.

Yes, I had to add the ">"'s manually.

For a single line, it's easy.

For a multi-line quote, I have to remove the internal line breaks, then add
just a single ">" in front of the first line. When WLM reformats the
paragraph, it adds ">" to the beginning of each reformatted line.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3555.0308) in Win8 (Release Preview)

RC, how did you get the >s in your reply? Did you add them manually?

Ken Blake

2012-06-06 02:26:08 UTC

Post by R. C. White
Hi, Ken.
Yes, I had to add the ">"'s manually.
For a single line, it's easy.
For a multi-line quote, I have to remove the internal line breaks, then add
just a single ">" in front of the first line. When WLM reformats the
paragraph, it adds ">" to the beginning of each reformatted line.

Ugh! Not trying to tell you what to do, of course--it's your
choice--but why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail and use
any of several much better programs instead?

R. C. White

2012-06-06 13:11:08 UTC

Hi, Ken.

...why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail...

I've heard that advice many times over the last several years, especially
since MS killed their part of Usenet and crippled WLM. But OE/WM/WLM have
been such a large part of my computing environment for so long (since 1995!)
that I just hate to give it up. It's kind of like an old faithful dog that
needs to be put out of its misery - but I just can't bear to do that, yet.

Perhaps after the transition to Win8 is complete in a few months, it will be
the time for me to investigate the several alternatives recommended by you
and others. I do appreciate the advice; I'm just not (quite) ready to
follow it.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3555.0308) in Win8 (Release Preview)

Ugh! Not trying to tell you what to do, of course--it's your
choice--but why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail and use
any of several much better programs instead?

Ken Blake

2012-06-06 14:01:12 UTC

Post by R. C. White
Hi, Ken.

...why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail...

Even though you have the extra work of putting in the >s? Both in
newsgroups and E-mail?

Your choice of course, but for e-mail you might want to consider
Microsoft Outlook, which, as far as I'm concerned, is more like
Outlook Express than Windows Live Mail is. And I like Forte Agent for
a newsreader.

Post by R. C. White
It's kind of like an old faithful dog that
needs to be put out of its misery - but I just can't bear to do that, yet.

OK. <g>

Mortimer

2012-06-06 14:48:48 UTC

Post by R. C. White
Hi, Ken.

...why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail...

Even though you have the extra work of putting in the >s? Both in
newsgroups and E-mail?
Your choice of course, but for e-mail you might want to consider
Microsoft Outlook, which, as far as I'm concerned, is more like
Outlook Express than Windows Live Mail is. And I like Forte Agent for
a newsreader.

Outlook stores everything in one huge .pst file, which is where I came into
this discussion - one file per email versus one file per email folder or
even one file for *all* folders. This makes it prone to corruption - and,
yes, I've had to repair corrupted psts and it's a) very slow, and b) not
100% perfect. Also Outlook seems to be more prone to getting its
send/receive processes in a muddle, failing to send/recive to specific
accounts - more so than for OE/WM/WLM. And it can't save email accounts to
.iaf filews (or equivalent) and import those, which makes it a pain when
migrating from one PC to another.

Apart from that, it's good: its UI is good and it has extras like calendar
and reminders.

How easy is it with Outlook to export specific messages (eg specific
folders) from one PC to another to synchronise two PCs' email sets from time
to time? Is it as simple as copying the PST or is more complictaed? With
WM/WLM you can slect/drag/drop messages to a shared folder and then (on the
other PC looking at the shared folder) drag those .eml files from there to
the email folder. Slightly clunky but 100% reliable.

Having all the emails in one big file means the whole thing needs to be
copied to backup everytime you back up the emails, whereas when you backup
WM/WLM, only the new/moved emails need to be copied to backup disk - eg with
SyncToy.

Gene Wirchenko

2012-06-06 20:17:02 UTC

Post by R. C. White
Hi, Ken.

...why don't you dump the terrible Windows Live Mail...

But the dog won't hunt.

Post by R. C. White
Perhaps after the transition to Win8 is complete in a few months, it will be
the time for me to investigate the several alternatives recommended by you
and others. I do appreciate the advice; I'm just not (quite) ready to
follow it.

I use Forte Agent myself. I like it, and I follow over 150
newsgroups. (Yes, I admit that some of them have little/no traffic,
but some have substantial amounts. rec.arts.sf-written has 875,220
posts on my system.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

glee

2012-06-06 03:12:57 UTC

I've used the ancient utilty QuoteClip (1994) for years, to do it for
me. I used it up through Windows XP, I haven't tried it in Win7 or on a
64-bit OS yet.
http://aumha.org/freeware/freeware.php#qclip
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

Post by R. C. White
Hi, Ken.
Yes, I had to add the ">"'s manually.
For a single line, it's easy.
For a multi-line quote, I have to remove the internal line breaks,
then add just a single ">" in front of the first line. When WLM
reformats the paragraph, it adds ">" to the beginning of each
reformatted line.
RC

RC, how did you get the >s in your reply? Did you add them manually?

Robert Redelmeier

2012-06-06 02:40:47 UTC

RC, how did you get the >s in your reply? Did you add them manually?

FWIW, classic newsreaders like rn/nn/tin will do this automagically
so will classic email clients like elm/pine/mutt. As nearly nothing
from MSFT can be considered classic (MS-DOS is like a Trabant),
they won't do this by default, but might be configurable through
some obscure raindance that makes a SysV /etc/rc.d look sane.

-- Robert

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-07 20:09:36 UTC

Post by R. C. White
Hi, John.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Actually, is there _any_ email software (XP, 7, or even '9x) that
stores each email as a separate real file? (In real
folders/directories?)

[]
Thanks for that information. Definitely food for thought!

(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I
use them at work], though I do find they _tend_ to integrate more into
the OS - if only by assuming they're the default for more than just
their primary purpose - than I feel comfortable with. But WLM might be
different. [I also can't help thinking "Live" means "assume permanent-on
connection", which is alien to my philosophy. But maybe it doesn't.])

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly
fact. - Thomas Henry Huxley

Gene Wirchenko

2012-06-07 22:04:03 UTC

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<***@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
use them at work], though I do find they _tend_ to integrate more into
the OS - if only by assuming they're the default for more than just
their primary purpose - than I feel comfortable with. But WLM might be
different. [I also can't help thinking "Live" means "assume permanent-on
connection", which is alien to my philosophy. But maybe it doesn't.])

I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-07 22:39:39 UTC

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

[]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

[]
Wow, do _those_ store individual emails/posts in individual files then?
(If so, does it extend to Eudora OSE, which is really Thunderbird?)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

Gene Wirchenko

2012-06-08 04:00:57 UTC

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:39:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

[]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

[]
Wow, do _those_ store individual emails/posts in individual files then?
(If so, does it extend to Eudora OSE, which is really Thunderbird?)

Oops! I missed that bit. No, Eudora and Agent both put messages
of a mailbox/newsgroup in a file. Each mailbox/newsgroup has its own
file.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

2012-06-08 00:15:13 UTC

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

I use Thunderbird and Agent.

I switched to Thunderbird because it has a open email folder format. It was a
PITA to lose a decade of email history.

John Williamson

2012-06-08 00:32:17 UTC

Post by k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

I use Thunderbird and Agent.
I switched to Thunderbird because it has a open email folder format. It was a
PITA to lose a decade of email history.

If you switched from Outlook or OE, as long as the .pst file (or its
backup) isn't corrupt, you can import all your e-mail into Thunderbird.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

2012-06-08 02:02:07 UTC

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:32:17 +0100, John Williamson

Post by k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:09:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Anyone know of email/news software that does this that _isn't_ from
Microsoft? Not that I have a _strong_ prejudice against MS products [I

Cue or queue the suggestions...

I use Qualcomm's Eudora for E-mail and Forte's Agent for USENET.

I use Thunderbird and Agent.
I switched to Thunderbird because it has a open email folder format. It was a
PITA to lose a decade of email history.

If you switched from Outlook or OE, as long as the .pst file (or its
backup) isn't corrupt, you can import all your e-mail into Thunderbird.

No, it was PMMail.

VanguardLH

2012-06-03 08:38:26 UTC

Post by David H. Lipman
Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-)

Yeah, I remember QEMM. I remember back then of paying something like
$2500 for a full-sized memory board fully populated with all of 4 MB of
RAM. All the chips were socketed so you bought tubes of memory chips
and had to insert them yourself. Cost was more than my entire computer.

And to think that edlin.com is still with us from all the way back then.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-04 13:17:35 UTC

In message <***@news6.newsguy.com>, David H. Lipman
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
[]

Post by David H. Lipman
They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

(Yes, but were there 64 of them?)
ISTR being told that the limit was 100, and am now wondering whether
your 64 was in hex. (which comes out as 100); however, others have
posted more comprehensive lists of limits for various media, and I
couldn't see 100 (or 64) in them.

Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

Gene E. Bloch

2012-06-04 17:29:29 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by David H. Lipman
They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root.

64.

You should expect numbers that have a lot of zeros in binary, as 64
decimal does (1000000), not numbers with few zeros in binary, such as
100 decimal (1100100). Such numbers match the hardware better.

It was 100 octal, actually.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

glee

2012-06-02 11:41:29 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy,
which weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

As I already posted in my reply about 14 hours ago, it was C:\DOS for
the Microsoft versions of DOS.

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-02 13:25:20 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
Yeah, I know it was always available in the path, but was there a
default directory created to hold these commands? For some reason I'm
thinking that there may have been a C:\SYS or SYSTEM folder or
something? Or were they all placed into C:\ the root directory?
Yousuf Khan

As I already posted in my reply about 14 hours ago, it was C:\DOS for
the Microsoft versions of DOS.

Yeah, I know you posted that, but I didn't get a chance to respond to it
since it was getting late for me. However, I also wanted some additional
verification about it. Funny, the C:\DOS directory seems so logically
simple, but I can't remember that at all. Then I would assume, the IBM
version had a C:\PCDOS directory?

Yousuf Khan

glee

2012-06-02 15:05:52 UTC

As I already posted in my reply about 14 hours ago, it was C:\DOS for
the Microsoft versions of DOS.

Yeah, I know you posted that, but I didn't get a chance to respond to
it since it was getting late for me. However, I also wanted some
additional verification about it. Funny, the C:\DOS directory seems so
logically simple, but I can't remember that at all. Then I would
assume, the IBM version had a C:\PCDOS directory?

PCDOS 7 (and probably the earlier versions) used C:\DOS

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

Bob I

2012-06-02 13:46:14 UTC

I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it anymore. In MS-DOS,
where were the standard external commands located? The only thing I remember about
MS-DOS was that the command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys).
Slightly different
names for the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but
otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into
the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

It depended upon the DOS falvour; PC/MS/DR.
However it was always located in the PATH (%PATH%).

C:\DOS

https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pang/ios100/doscmd.html

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 05:56:06 UTC

Post by John Williamson
C:\DOS
https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pang/ios100/doscmd.html

Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking
here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms.

Yousuf Khan

Wolf K

2012-06-03 12:25:27 UTC

Post by John Williamson
C:\DOS
https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pang/ios100/doscmd.html

Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking
here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms.
Yousuf Khan

I've found if you use a longer search phrase, usually it's more likely
you'll find what you want. Eg, DOS Commands location vs DOS Commands.
Rearranging the word order is always worth a try, too.

HTH,
Wolf K.

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 22:35:03 UTC

Post by Wolf K

Post by John Williamson
C:\DOS
https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pang/ios100/doscmd.html

Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking
here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms.
Yousuf Khan

I've found if you use a longer search phrase, usually it's more likely
you'll find what you want. Eg, DOS Commands location vs DOS Commands.
Rearranging the word order is always worth a try, too.

I think I actually used that search term, "dos commands location" or
maybe even "external dos commands location".

Yousuf Khan

glee

2012-06-01 21:26:07 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys,
and the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for
the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise
identical. The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or
xcopy, which weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS
folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

Ken Blake

2012-06-02 00:32:53 UTC

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

glee

2012-06-02 00:55:33 UTC

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

Ken Blake

2012-06-02 02:41:41 UTC

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

LOL from me too. I'm in the minority, but I love puns.

philo

2012-06-02 08:33:18 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The

<snip>

Post by glee
As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory<g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

LOL from me too. I'm in the minority, but I love puns.

I have a few vintage machines here but they are up in the attic.
I thought the default directory for MSDOS was simply C:\msdos

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

Stewart

2012-06-02 10:29:10 UTC

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:26:07 -0400, "glee"

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat,
config.sys,
and the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for
the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise
identical. The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or
xcopy, which weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS
folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

Why would anyone ever need more thn 640k?

k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

2012-06-02 13:52:29 UTC

Post by Stewart

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:26:07 -0400, "glee"

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat,
config.sys,
and the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for
the PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise
identical. The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or
xcopy, which weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS
folder or something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

Why would anyone ever need more thn 640k?

When he said that, I already had 704K in my 5150.

Ant

2012-06-02 13:03:03 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

yes, well with MS-DOS, you need less memory anyway... lol

But is that free conventional memory? I guess it was too big to fit to
run it. [grin] I am pretty sure C:\DOS was it. I hated v4! Stupid
conventional memory!

--
"Do not kill ants. They are your best friends." --Joe Brainard
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2012-06-04 13:21:43 UTC

As I recall, the default location for MS-DOS (at least v. 5 and 6.x) was
at C:\DOS

That's what I remember too, but at my age, I don't trust my memory <g>

Perhaps it needs replacing ... mine certainly does (-:

Post by glee
Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 05:22:19 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

See replies to the disconnected MULTI-posted copy of your same message
over in the alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup.

What does hardware, especially chips, have to do with your question?
Don't shotgun to unrelated newsgroups which results in posting off-topic
within them. With all those cross-posted newsgroups, you didn't even
bother to include the *.msdos newsgroups in your query.

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 05:35:44 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

See replies to the disconnected MULTI-posted copy of your same message
over in the alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup.
What does hardware, especially chips, have to do with your question?
Don't shotgun to unrelated newsgroups which results in posting off-topic
within them. With all those cross-posted newsgroups, you didn't even
bother to include the *.msdos newsgroups in your query.

Oops, I see the problem. You did cross-post to the
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup. However, my reply there only
went to that newsgroup. Why? Because TomT changed the Newsgroups list
without issuing notice about his change. I didn't notice he changed the
Newsgroups list. So never mind about the comment about multi-posting
(except regarding the unrelated newsgroups and lack of including the
msdos newsgroups).

See my reply to TomT but only in the alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
newsgroup since that is the only newsgroup that TomT retained in his
Newsgroups list in his reply.

To TomT:
Whenever you change the Newsgroups list, add a comment about making that
change. It's considered netiquette to inform of changing this header.
Lack of notification is typical of troll-like behavior or could be a
mistake in use of your newsreader. If you change the Newsgroups list,
add a note saying which newsgroups you chose to omit in your reply at
the top of your reply post.

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-02 13:28:47 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

See replies to the disconnected MULTI-posted copy of your same message
over in the alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup.
What does hardware, especially chips, have to do with your question?

That group used to be quite generalized at one time.

Post by VanguardLH
Don't shotgun to unrelated newsgroups which results in posting off-topic
within them. With all those cross-posted newsgroups, you didn't even
bother to include the *.msdos newsgroups in your query.

Well, that's simple, I didn't even know that there were still msdos
newsgroups existed.

Yousuf Khan

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 14:50:06 UTC

PATH: ...!news.bnb-lp.com!not-for-mail

That's your NNTP server. It's the injection node in the PATH header.
They hide behind a private domain registration (i.e., their registrar
lists themself as the contact for that domain instead of the real
registrant of that domain). There is usually a bad reason why a
registrant chooses to hide, or the reason is superfluous (like trying to
avoid spam for domain renewals when obviously the e-mail address given
by the registrant to the registrar could be a special-use account that
filters out all e-mails except those that come from their registrar).
The host name news.bnb-lp.com equates to IP address 67.225.189.77 which
is allocated to Liquid Web (liquidweb.com). Since Liquid Web is a
webhosting company, someone has an account there on which they are
running an NNTP server. From the bnb-lp.com web site, Ball and Ball is
yet another 3rd tier webhoster (they resell their provider's service)
along with providing Usenet access.

It's possible they don't carry some newsgroups that other NNTP servers
carry. Based on their primitive web site and that they are NOT a Usenet
backbone provider (e.g., Highwinds), and because it looks like they only
carry text-only newsgroups (which is a bit pricey at $30/yr), it's quite
possible they don't carry some newsgroups. *.msdos may be some of those
they don't carry. Some NNTP servers don't carry as many newsgroups as
others (and some carry lots of garbage newsgroups).

Have your newsreader refresh its list of newsgroups; i.e., have it
re-read the list of groups from the NNTP server. Then search on
"msdos". I'm using Albasani as my NNTP provider and they show 16 groups
with *.msdos for a name. Eternal-September has the same newsgroups.
There are few in Albasani that aren't on Eternal-September and visa
versa but most are duplicated on all NNTP servers.

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 05:41:14 UTC

Post by VanguardLH
It's possible they don't carry some newsgroups that other NNTP servers
carry. Based on their primitive web site and that they are NOT a Usenet
backbone provider (e.g., Highwinds), and because it looks like they only
carry text-only newsgroups (which is a bit pricey at $30/yr), it's quite
possible they don't carry some newsgroups. *.msdos may be some of those
they don't carry. Some NNTP servers don't carry as many newsgroups as
others (and some carry lots of garbage newsgroups).
Have your newsreader refresh its list of newsgroups; i.e., have it
re-read the list of groups from the NNTP server. Then search on
"msdos". I'm using Albasani as my NNTP provider and they show 16 groups
with *.msdos for a name. Eternal-September has the same newsgroups.
There are few in Albasani that aren't on Eternal-September and visa
versa but most are duplicated on all NNTP servers.

Not to prolong this sideline discussion much further, the problem was
not whether or not they carried the newsgroups, it's whether or not I
even searched for one, because I was not aware of them.

Yousuf Khan

GreyCloud

2012-06-02 06:13:47 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

DevilsPGD

2012-06-02 09:02:49 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

What does that have to do with the question being asked?

--
This signature was randomly selected

chrisv

2012-06-29 19:11:16 UTC

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

What does that have to do with the question being asked?

Nothing. "GreyCloud" is a senile old fsckwit who mostly just trolls.
He's retired and bored, you see, so finds it "fun" to team-up with
some of the most vile assholes over to troll USENET and attack decent,
honest Linux advocates.

GreyCloud

2012-06-29 23:37:27 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

What does that have to do with the question being asked?

I see you have resorted to trolling a windows newsgroup.

For the rest of the windows users: watch out for this one, as he is
known habitual liar in other newsgroups. Worse, he is one of the worst
potty mouths you'll ever run into.

Gene E. Bloch

2012-06-29 23:46:37 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

What does that have to do with the question being asked?

I see you have resorted to trolling a windows newsgroup.
For the rest of the windows users: watch out for this one, as he is
known habitual liar in other newsgroups. Worse, he is one of the worst
potty mouths you'll ever run into.

He's been here[1] before and is recognized.

[1] Or maybe another place where I hang out, I don't recall.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

chrisv

2012-07-02 19:19:33 UTC

Post by chrisv
"GreyCloud" is a senile old fsckwit who mostly just trolls.
He's retired and bored, you see, so finds it "fun" to team-up with
some of the most vile assholes over to troll USENET and attack decent,
honest Linux advocates.

I see you have resorted to trolling a windows newsgroup.

I see you have resorted to your shameless lying, as usual,
"GreyCloud".

I merely noticed your vile presence while on a rare visit to one of my
old haunts, c.s.i.p.h.chips, and thought that some of these fine folks
might benefit by knowing more about you.

Post by GreyCloud
For the rest of the windows users: watch out for this one,

There's no need for anyone to "watch out" for me, "GreyCloud". I'm
not going to hang-around.

Unlike you, I am not some fscking asshole who trolls an advocacy or
help group, siding with a bunch of puerile, lying sociopaths and
ridiculing a bunch of decent and honest people.

Post by GreyCloud
as he is known habitual liar in other newsgroups.

This could be called "the pot calling the polished silver black".
This is a favorite attack of filthy lying assholes like "GreyCloud" -
he not only *lies* without shame, but he calls honest people liars!

But no one has to take my word for it. It's all in the record in the
Linux advocacy group.

"GreyCloud" has been kill-filed by myself and many of the other
advocates, but he's still making his nasty little comments and
supporting his nasty little "friends" in attacking a bunch of decent,
honest, and reasonable people.

Post by GreyCloud
Worse, he is one of the worst potty mouths you'll ever run into.

"Potty mouth" is a lot better than what "GreyCloud" is.

"GreyCloud" is an anti-advocate troll in an advocacy group. For those
who have experience with such vermin, this may be enough-said.

"GreyCloud" has chosen to join-forces with as vile a group of liars,
assholes, stalkers, shills, imbeciles, and bigots that are to be found
on USENET. Together, they take the anti-charter position on
pretty-much every* issue, and tirelessly disrupt the newsgroup,
shamelessly using idiocy and lies to attack the advocates and what
they believe in.

"GreyCloud" will call you a liar to your face, when you know damn well
you speak the truth.

He's retired and bored, you see, and finds being a total shit
"entertaining".

Again, no one needs to take my word, on any of this.

chrisv

2012-07-02 19:29:04 UTC

Post by Gene E. Bloch
He's been here[1] before and is recognized.
[1] Or maybe another place where I hang out, I don't recall.

Perhaps you should be more careful about whom you claim to
"recognize", when you can't recall from where.

I've posted essentially nothing outside the Linux advocacy group, in
recent years. Of course, there are some cross-posts.

I'm not like "GreyCloud". Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't go looking for
people to ridicule and harass. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't troll
newsgroups where I'm not wanted. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't get my
kicks attacking decent, honest people as "hypocrites", "liars", and
"cult members".

GreyCloud

2012-07-02 20:51:45 UTC

Post by Gene E. Bloch
He's been here[1] before and is recognized.
[1] Or maybe another place where I hang out, I don't recall.

Perhaps you should be more careful about whom you claim to
"recognize", when you can't recall from where.
I've posted essentially nothing outside the Linux advocacy group, in
recent years. Of course, there are some cross-posts.
I'm not like "GreyCloud". Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't go looking for
people to ridicule and harass. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't troll
newsgroups where I'm not wanted. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't get my
kicks attacking decent, honest people as "hypocrites", "liars", and
"cult members".

You are a well known and documented liar and a hypocrite as well.
One of usenets worst potty mouth. And no one here wants to talk to you.

Gene E. Bloch

2012-07-02 22:26:39 UTC

Post by Gene E. Bloch
He's been here[1] before and is recognized.
[1] Or maybe another place where I hang out, I don't recall.

Perhaps you should be more careful about whom you claim to
"recognize", when you can't recall from where.

It doesn't matter that much - I've seen posts from you somewhere. When I
see another I recall the earlier experiences and consequently can figure
out where the deja vu feeling came from.

Post by chrisv
I've posted essentially nothing outside the Linux advocacy group, in
recent years. Of course, there are some cross-posts.
I'm not like "GreyCloud". Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't go looking for
people to ridicule and harass. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't troll
newsgroups where I'm not wanted. Unlike "GreyCloud", I don't get my
kicks attacking decent, honest people as "hypocrites", "liars", and
"cult members".

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

chrisv

2012-07-03 13:15:22 UTC

Post by chrisv
Perhaps you should be more careful about whom you claim to
"recognize", when you can't recall from where.

It doesn't matter that much - I've seen posts from you somewhere. When I
see another I recall the earlier experiences and consequently can figure
out where the deja vu feeling came from.

Uh huh. I sure don't recall seeing your name before.

Be aware, too, that I've been quite-often forged by - you might guess
it - anti-Linux trolls.

Anyway, if your recollection of (the real) me is true, it's of someone
who treats people very much as they deserve to be treated.
Respectable people being treated with respect, and filthy lying
*assholes* like "GreyCloud" getting treated as they deserve.

chrisv

2012-07-03 13:22:24 UTC

Post by chrisv
Anyway, if your recollection of (the real) me is true, it's of someone
who treats people very much as they deserve to be treated.
Respectable people being treated with respect, and filthy lying
*assholes* like "GreyCloud" getting treated as they deserve.

I noticed that there are a couple old .chips guys, (krw and Yousuf
Khan) participating in this thread. They might vouch that I'm not a
bad sort, and that the above is true. Or they might (wisely) choose
to stay out of this silliness. 8)

Hey guys. Glad to see you're still alive. Is 'Tripper still around?

k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

2012-07-03 15:08:28 UTC

I noticed that there are a couple old .chips guys, (krw and Yousuf
Khan) participating in this thread. They might vouch that I'm not a
bad sort, and that the above is true. Or they might (wisely) choose
to stay out of this silliness. 8)
Hey guys. Glad to see you're still alive. Is 'Tripper still around?

Never left .chips, just been lurking for five years, or so, though. x86 is so
last century. ;-)

GreyCloud

2012-07-03 17:54:36 UTC

Post by chrisv
Perhaps you should be more careful about whom you claim to
"recognize", when you can't recall from where.

It doesn't matter that much - I've seen posts from you somewhere. When I
see another I recall the earlier experiences and consequently can figure
out where the deja vu feeling came from.

Uh huh. I sure don't recall seeing your name before.
Be aware, too, that I've been quite-often forged by - you might guess
it - anti-Linux trolls.
Anyway, if your recollection of (the real) me is true, it's of someone
who treats people very much as they deserve to be treated.
Respectable people being treated with respect, and filthy lying
*assholes* like "GreyCloud" getting treated as they deserve.

Quit trolling. You are a well known anti-windows troll and the worst
potty mouth on usenet.

2012-06-30 04:51:09 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember
it anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands
located? The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the
command.com was located in the root directory (along with
autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the hidden files msdos.sys &
io.sys). Slightly different names for the PC-DOS version, such as
pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical. The standard
external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which weren't
built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or something
which contained these commands?

In DOS enter the command followed by the slash and a question mark.

i.e. xcopy /?

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 14:59:35 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys & io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys & ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

That doesn't have any of the internal or external commands. While most
MS-DOS installs use the default command interpreter (command.com), it is
possible to specify a different program (i.e., you get a different
shell). The 'shell' or 'comspec' parameters in config.sys specified
which command interpreter to load; if omitted, the kernel used the
default one (command.com). That specified the primary shell. The
secondary shell was specified using the COMSPEC environment variable
(e.g., 4DOS.COM).

The internal commands are those provided by the command interpreter
(command.com, 4dos.com, etc), not by io.sys. The external commands were
actually just programs bundled with the OS. They also were not buried
somewhere inside of io.sys.

If you read that Wiki article, you'll see that io.sys has nothing to do
with what internal and external commands are available or from where
they are retrieved.

GreyCloud

2012-06-02 17:07:27 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

That doesn't have any of the internal or external commands. While most
MS-DOS installs use the default command interpreter (command.com), it is
possible to specify a different program (i.e., you get a different
shell). The 'shell' or 'comspec' parameters in config.sys specified
which command interpreter to load; if omitted, the kernel used the
default one (command.com). That specified the primary shell. The
secondary shell was specified using the COMSPEC environment variable
(e.g., 4DOS.COM).
The internal commands are those provided by the command interpreter
(command.com, 4dos.com, etc), not by io.sys. The external commands were
actually just programs bundled with the OS. They also were not buried
somewhere inside of io.sys.
If you read that Wiki article, you'll see that io.sys has nothing to do
with what internal and external commands are available or from where
they are retrieved.

IO.sys is the device driver file.
MSDOS.SYS is what loads command.com from all that I could gather.
All you have to do to test this out is to rename command.com to
tcommand.com. Then reboot. If cd c:\ doesn't work, then the question
has been answered. Just a test case.

VanguardLH

2012-06-02 17:24:10 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

That doesn't have any of the internal or external commands. While most
MS-DOS installs use the default command interpreter (command.com), it is
possible to specify a different program (i.e., you get a different
shell). The 'shell' or 'comspec' parameters in config.sys specified
which command interpreter to load; if omitted, the kernel used the
default one (command.com). That specified the primary shell. The
secondary shell was specified using the COMSPEC environment variable
(e.g., 4DOS.COM).
The internal commands are those provided by the command interpreter
(command.com, 4dos.com, etc), not by io.sys. The external commands were
actually just programs bundled with the OS. They also were not buried
somewhere inside of io.sys.
If you read that Wiki article, you'll see that io.sys has nothing to do
with what internal and external commands are available or from where
they are retrieved.

Yep, as you have asserted, the internal commands are from the command
interpreter (aka shell) that msdos.sys loads. It might be command.com.
It could be something different (e.g., 4dos.exe). That something loaded
the command interpreter does not equate to that something being the
command interperter where are the internal commands. If you want to
proceed further backwards, you could use your logic to say the internal
and external commands are in the BIOS since, after all, it starts the
entire loading process of the MBR bootstrap code which loads the boot
sector in the active primary partition which loads the kernel which
loads the command interpreter.

GreyCloud

2012-06-02 19:37:29 UTC

Post by Yousuf Khan
I've been trying to remember this, and I honestly can't remember it
anymore. In MS-DOS, where were the standard external commands located?
The only thing I remember about MS-DOS was that the command.com was
located in the root directory (along with autoexec.bat, config.sys, and
the hidden files msdos.sys& io.sys). Slightly different names for the
PC-DOS version, such as pcdos.sys& ibmio.sys, but otherwise identical.
The standard external commands were those like chkdsk or xcopy, which
weren't built into the command.com. Was there an MSDOS folder or
something which contained these commands?
Yousuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IO.SYS

That doesn't have any of the internal or external commands. While most
MS-DOS installs use the default command interpreter (command.com), it is
possible to specify a different program (i.e., you get a different
shell). The 'shell' or 'comspec' parameters in config.sys specified
which command interpreter to load; if omitted, the kernel used the
default one (command.com). That specified the primary shell. The
secondary shell was specified using the COMSPEC environment variable
(e.g., 4DOS.COM).
The internal commands are those provided by the command interpreter
(command.com, 4dos.com, etc), not by io.sys. The external commands were
actually just programs bundled with the OS. They also were not buried
somewhere inside of io.sys.
If you read that Wiki article, you'll see that io.sys has nothing to do
with what internal and external commands are available or from where
they are retrieved.

In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing
that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys.
The bios usually has to do with low-level system calls. I used to have
the IBM reference books on those system calls, but never saw things like
CD, COPY, REN, etc. in their book.
I suppose I could fire up the old IBM I do have and try this myself.

Gene E. Bloch

2012-06-02 23:17:25 UTC

Post by GreyCloud
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing
that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys.

Because you didn't buy and install 4dos.

It was an independent product.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Ken Blake

2012-06-02 23:36:13 UTC

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:17:25 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"

Post by GreyCloud
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing
that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys.

Because you didn't buy and install 4dos.
It was an independent product.

It was a *wonderful* product (although I can hardly remember the
details of it, I remember liking it very much). But I do remember once
writing a batch file of about 4000 lines!

Gene E. Bloch

2012-06-03 23:30:22 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:17:25 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"

Post by GreyCloud
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing
that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys.

Because you didn't buy and install 4dos.
It was an independent product.

It was a *wonderful* product (although I can hardly remember the
details of it, I remember liking it very much). But I do remember once
writing a batch file of about 4000 lines!

That is a big batch of code :-)

I never used 4DOS, so I don't know nothin'.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 05:51:06 UTC

4DOS was an alternate command.com, which you had to buy separately. The
company behind it eventually sold the rights to it to Norton, which
appropriately renamed it to NDOS. Exact same functionality as 4DOS, but
different name. It basically was an improved command.com with many
advanced features dedicated to making the user interface easier (history
recall, sophisticated DOS-based menu creation, etc., etc.). If you're
familiar with Linux or Unix, think of it like being the difference
between "bash" and "sh": i.e. basically exactly the same functionality
and then some.

Back in those days I also used to multitask DOS programs using Desqview.
The combination of Desqview and 4DOS was probably the ultimate
command-line oriented operating system for PC's.

Yousuf Khan

Ant

2012-06-03 16:21:02 UTC

Remember DOS Shell? ;)
--
"What is that?" "Some kind of insect?" "It's an ant." "Girl, you needed
an exterminator. She had ants on her face." "Well, these aren't your
garden-variety dumpster ants." "And they aren't ... to decomp." "Why are
they in her stomach?" "La hormiga culona--leaf cutter ants. It's a
Colombian dish." "Are you saying that people eat them?" "Fried." "Okay,
so we are looking for a club that serves fried ants." --CSI: Miami
(Wannabe episode; #218)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

John Williamson

2012-06-03 20:46:39 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.

Which reminds me...

Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.

http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

Is one source.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

2012-06-03 21:12:37 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running)

I am with you, brother.

Post by John Williamson
has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

Too little too late. After pathetic Symantec couldn't port NC to
Windows properly, I've switched to Windows/Total Commander
and have been a very happy camper ever since. Stopped upgrading
at v.6 though. TC has no real competition at this point.

DK

Trent

2012-06-04 10:01:14 UTC

Post by DK
TC has no real competition at this point.

I haven't tried TC, but I like and use Xplorer2, which seems to have the
same features.

Ant

2012-06-03 22:11:20 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

I still use "mc" in Linux. :)
--
"When you turn on a light in a room, what happens?" Shaw said. "The
roaches scatter, but the ants keep marching. You can step on them, throw
water on them, but they keep on marching. I want ants for my defense."
--Willy Shaw
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

John Williamson

2012-06-03 22:22:58 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

I still use "mc" in Linux. :)

Which is the name of the executable in Windows as well. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Ant

2012-06-04 00:01:36 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

I still use "mc" in Linux. :)

Which is the name of the executable in Windows as well. ;-)

Did it work well. I rarely use the text file explorers these days.

--
"Yo mama is so poor, I saw her fighting an ant for food." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

John Williamson

2012-06-04 06:24:12 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html

I still use "mc" in Linux. :)

Which is the name of the executable in Windows as well. ;-)

Did it work well. I rarely use the text file explorers these days.

It's done everything it does under Linux so far for me. It's only a tiny
free download from the site I linked to, so not hard to find out for
yourself.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Steve Hayes

2012-06-04 04:15:16 UTC

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:46:39 +0100, John Williamson

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html
Is one source.

Thanks for that.

I've used one called File Commander.

There is also Windows Xplorer 2, available here:

http://www.zabkat.com/

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Leon Manfredi

2012-06-04 23:37:43 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:46:39 +0100, John Williamson

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Almost as fondly as I remember Norton Commander.
Which reminds me...
Midnight Commander (The first Linux program I install once the system's
running) has been ported to Windows and works on Windows Vista business
edition and Windows 7 Home Premium.
http://adeefreeware.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/midnight-commander-for-windows.html
Is one source.

Thanks for that.
I've used one called File Commander.
http://www.zabkat.com/

How about Qfiler, Qedit, The Semware Editors TsePro....

Yousuf Khan

2012-06-03 22:36:42 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Yes, but I never used it, by that point I was already using DOS for
several years and I was already familiar with the command-line.

Yousuf Khan

Ant

2012-06-04 00:00:33 UTC

Post by Ant
Remember DOS Shell? ;)

Yes, but I never used it, by that point I was already using DOS for
several years and I was already familiar with the command-line.

Ah.

--
"We're all ants. I'm a glittery little ant." --Alanis Morissette
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

VanguardLH

2012-06-03 09:02:29 UTC