WIN98 Shell

[pjhjones]

Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shell or does DOS run in a
Windows shell

[philo]

"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
> Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shell or does DOS run in a
> Windows shell


The default "shell" for Windows 98 is "Explorer"

It's possible to use other shells however.

[Tim Slattery]

pjhjones > wrote:

>Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shell or does DOS run in a
>Windows shell

Both!

When a Win98 computer starts, DOS is booted (in real mode). Then a
command is executed which starts Windows (switches to protected mode,
loads LOTS of stuff). Once Windows is running you can open multiple
DOS boxes, each of which uses the 386's Virtual 8086 mode to look like
an independent DOS machine.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
> Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shell or does DOS run in a
> Windows shell

Neither, a "shell" is not a virtual machine.

Win98 ships with DOS 7.0 and uses it as part of the bootstrap
process. From within Windows you can run an emulated DOS
(there are optional settings for this DOS), or you can opt for
a new instance of DOS where Windows is removed from the
memory and DOS 7.0 is loaded.

http://users.iafrica.com/c/cq/cquirke/whatdos.htm

[Jeff Richards]

Applications don't run 'in' a shell - the shell is simply the user interface
to the operating system functionality. Windows 98 is executed as a DOS
process and then replaces the DOS shell (command.com) with its own shell
(Explorer). Windows 98 can host a DOS session which starts, by default,
with the standard DOS shell (command.com).
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
> Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shell or does DOS run in a
> Windows shell

[98 Guy]

Jeff Richards wrote:

> Windows 98 is executed as a DOS process and then replaces the
> DOS shell ...

A false statement designed to purpetuate the myth that Windows 9x is
"dos-based" or that it "runs on top of dos".

[philo]

"98 Guy" > wrote in message ...
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>
> > Windows 98 is executed as a DOS process and then replaces the
> > DOS shell ...
>
> A false statement designed to purpetuate the myth that Windows 9x is
> "dos-based" or that it "runs on top of dos".


You have read Mr. Richards' statement quite wrong...
though you may need DOS to begin the boot-up process...
once Win98 is up and running...you can rename command.com
and Windows will keep on running...
so Win98 does not run on DOS...
it's simply needed for booting. (as was stated)

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

"philo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "98 Guy" > wrote in message ...
>> Jeff Richards wrote:
>>
>> > Windows 98 is executed as a DOS process and then replaces the
>> > DOS shell ...
>>
>> A false statement designed to purpetuate the myth that Windows 9x is
>> "dos-based" or that it "runs on top of dos".

> You have read Mr. Richards' statement quite wrong...
> though you may need DOS to begin the boot-up process...
> once Win98 is up and running...you can rename command.com
> and Windows will keep on running...
> so Win98 does not run on DOS...
> it's simply needed for booting. (as was stated)

Command.com is not the kernel, just the command interpreter. In my
opinion it is the kernel that determines what the OS is.

This looks like a good introduction to the DOS to Windows boot process:

http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html

It mentions the DOS kernel being in either io.sys, or both io.sys and
msdos.sys
files. Once the Windows kernel takes over it doesn't really matter how it
got to
run.

For more on W98 architecture:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768198.aspx

[Jeff Richards]

"philo" > wrote in message
...
>
> snip <
>
> You have read Mr. Richards' statement quite wrong...
> though you may need DOS to begin the boot-up process...
> once Win98 is up and running...you can rename command.com
> and Windows will keep on running...
> so Win98 does not run on DOS...
> it's simply needed for booting. (as was stated)
>

Sigh. Windows 98 DOES run on DOS. Have you ever tried to run it on a
machine that does not have DOS installed?

But Command.com is not DOS. Do this. Rename all copies of Command.com.
Boot the machine. At the prompt that appears, enter C:\Windows\Win.com.
Windows starts and runs. No Command.com.involved.

(Win or Win.COM or C:\Windows\Win doesn't work. Why not?)

DOS is needed to start and run Windows. The shell is not. Windows can be
started from the shell, but it is not necessary. The shell is not DOS and
DOS is not the shell.

[98 Guy]

Jeff Richards wrote:

> Sigh. Windows 98 DOES run on DOS. Have you ever tried to run it
> on a machine that does not have DOS installed?

You are confusing the FILE SYSTEM with the OPERATING SYSTEM.

Windows 9x has native file support for FAT32, and so does DOS. But that
doesn't mean that win 9x "runs on DOS".

> DOS is needed to start and run Windows.

Win 9x could theoretically be started without being boot-strapped from
DOS.

But your statement is wrong in that DOS is NOT needed to "run" windows
once windows has been started.

DOS is used as a transient loader for win-9x.

As implimented by Micro$oft, win-9x is booted or invoked from DOS. It
does not run "on DOS".

[teebo]

> Does Windows 98 second edition run in a DOS shellor does DOS run in a
> Windows shell

Hi pjhjones

you got the answer from the other posts
(a shell is the application that you use to start other applications from,
the _operatingsystem_ is the thing that you run programs _in_.)
In the case of Windows95/98/98se/me, dos starts but then Windows is
started (perhaps even before dos shell is started?) and kicks out dos
so that only Windows runs.

if you want, you can start a dos shell (command.com) or other
dos-programs from the Windows shell (explorer), and Windows then
tries hard to make the dos program believe it is running in pure dos.

if you want to run certain dos programs that can't work anyway
inside the Windows operating system (perhaps they use "unreal mode"?)
then you can either exit Windows and in the exit-dialogbox select
"start computer in dos mode" or righclick and modify the settings
for the dosprogram (Program-tab/Advanced/Dos-mode). both ways
windows will exit and starts dos instead.

if you don't like Windows normal shell (explorer) then you can replace
it with other ones, you can even run msdos's shell command.com as your
windows shell, since it is capable to start windows program if you
are in Windows,
and sure, you can have the calculator as your windows shell too I
believe...
but it would be hard to start other programs from it :-)


When it comes to replacement shells, do LiteStep replaces save/open
dialog boxes and system commands that applications need too?
I assume it replaces more than the filemanager/taskbar/startbutton things?
if I replace win98 shell with win95 shell (with for example 98lite) some
windows program won't work becasue win95 shell is missing some commands
it uses like 'tell me the program data folder in unicode' or something
like that... (I guess it was a bad example, perhaps unicows do that)

About starting windows, I wonder how much work it would be to
have something else than msdos as a starter of windows? for example
if grub bootmenu could start windows directly. not that it would
be usefull in any way but just for the fun of it :-)