Progress Report and Other Comments

A couple of years ago I asked Vernon Frazee to give me a simple roadmap on how to get started studying DOS. He graciously took time to help me and on several occasions since then. One of the best moves I ever made. Why? Because the study of DOS opens up the software and hardware relationships. Studying Dos has helped me understand hardware and understanding hardware has helped with the interaction of the newer systems up to and including XP. And how to get the most out of them.

I have MS 6.22 installed on a 225MB hard drive. The cost has been minimal as all hardware, software, and books were purchased at garage sales, thrift shops, and a couple of online vendors. For instance an original Microsoft 6.22 Users Guide (including workgroups) for $2.98 at a thirftstore.

We see many of our members trying to get their feet on the ground in understanding their computers and DOS is IMHO the vehicle to do it. Especially if one has never worked with computers. :)

Why not start with bash? Another good way to go.

I've always loved DOS, and still find it the best environment to test hardware like floppy and CD-ROM drives, and modems (so long as said modem is controller based, not host based like Winmodems.)

Also, when your Win9x installation is hosed, you have to use DOS tools (EXTRACT, EDIT, ATTRIB, etc) to make the necessary 'repairs' unless you just enjoy reinstalling Windows every time a small problem pops up. But to reinstall Windows from DOS, you'll need a working CD-ROM drive-- if you don't have an Emergency Boot Disk you'll have to make one yourself-- again, knowledge of DOS is a must.

bash? Maybe for those in the Unix forums :)

Even when working in a large network environment a good knowledge of DOS can go a long way. Not enough can be said for the proper application of a ping or tracert. Nor when that pesky file will not delete having the where-with-all to track it down and delete it by hand. Batch files and the like are still used in almost every shop I know of, and without some knowledge of dos they don't get very far.

Dont forget the power of the "| more" (I always loved route to) and the dir > filename.txt or dir > lpt1.

Hi All, Came up with a question based on what has been said already.

Is there an Operationing System today that does not have DOS in it in any way? :)

DOS itself was loosely based on Unix (basic commands, etc), but since a basic concept in Unix is that disks are used, one could say Unix is a "disk operating system", but it's not "DOS".

Unix, MacOS, QNX, Seal, V2, etc.... many operating systems that do use disks but are clearly not based on DOS.