Since 2000 was NT, any DOS you get will be migrated from the previous install. Nothing you can do about that. But this was still fun to watch.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

It depends. When having DOS or Win9x preinstalled, and installing Windows 2000 alongside it (clean parallel install/multiboot setup), the previous version stays, so you can flip between the two. The scenario described here as in the case of an Upgrade from 9x to 2000, win9x will be completely replaced, and only the DOS part is left behind. In this case, there‘s no flipping forth and back between Win9x and 2000, as the previous Windows version is gone.

Never saw this either but then I don't remember ever upgrading from 9x to 2K, just fresh clean installs.

@markshade8398

2 ай бұрын

Im pretty sure that you could bot do that. They were 100% different. W2k was a revamped Win NT - not at all the same thing as the Win9x versions which were dos based altbough with significant changes.

@pow1983

2 ай бұрын

I learned long ago upgrades are a waste of time! Fresh every time

@Tiago-Martins

2 ай бұрын

​@markshade8398 have you seen the vídeo??

@markshade8398

2 ай бұрын

@@Tiago-Martins yes.... And I worked in IT back then.... Rolling out W95 and W2000 to more than 2000 machines... There was not an acceptable way to lay W2000 on top of W9x because the 9x were all some form of modified DOS platform and W2000 was the next version of W-NT and it was as different from DOS as UNIX was..... Just 100% different.

@Tiago-Martins

2 ай бұрын

@@markshade8398 but you can do it, can t you?

With regards to the documentation team and developers disconnect note that I did support for MS for win 95-98 and windows xp. Pretty much all of the KB's on the MS site were written by the support staff and not the developers or any team. Some of them were written by Microsoft directly which I cant remember the term they used for those guys. I myself wrote the KB for installing netbui on windows XP though trial and error. The documentation we got from the developers was pretty garbage and seamed for like marketing material then real in depth tech data. I really wish I would have kept some of the training material I used to have for windows XP and 98 as its a pretty neat time capsule for that time and did have some useful tid bits.

The odd thing about it is that early Pump It Up machines ran on DOS before the Prex 3 era which switched to Windows XPe. They used a modified DOS on a Disk-On-Chip module as the OS with the BIOS being bypassed and the game running off the CD.

@kbhasi

3 ай бұрын

Those probably ran some version of ROM DOS

@christiangomez2496

3 ай бұрын

@@kbhasi Maybe. And here's a another ofd thing about these boards. The MK3 to my knowledge has a 3Dfx voodoo except it's embedded into the board. Everything since MK6 has been COTS motherboards for desktop PCs with the OS being Linux

When the Chinese MsDos 7 came out, I Loved it! No Rhyme or Reason, but it was nice to have the Newest version, it also had minimal USB support for storage drives

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

plus it Long Filename support!

@kathrynradonich3982

3 ай бұрын

And fat32 support if I remember right

@Raletia

3 ай бұрын

@@kathrynradonich3982 I think any DOS version included with Windows 95's later revisions, uh.. like B or C? should support FAT32. Though I do believe the initial release(or was it just the floppy version? I forget) only supported FAT16.

@ErazerPT

3 ай бұрын

@@Raletia From 95 OSR2 onward. LFN you can get from a TSR, which was sort of what the console does when not in real mode. Same for USB Mass Storage devices. FreeDOS does it "all in one", but also does "too much sometimes". Hard to get the best of all worlds. Anyway, for real funsies try WfWG3.11 with Calmira shell, it's a real kicker.

@kathrynradonich3982

3 ай бұрын

@@Raletia RTM windows 95 did only support FAT16 it wasn't until windows 95 B that fat32 support came along

You were onto something with the beta versions. The earliest version of that KB article on web archive is from February 2001 and contains the disclamer "This article discusses a Beta release of a Microsoft product. The information in this article is provided as-is and is subject to change without notice." Seems that the disclamer got lost in one of the subsequent page redesigns. EDIT: The file dates of the KB article correspond to the original release of Windows 98, not the Second Edition. Furthermore the TEMP folder listed there was created 2 days after the Beta 2 release of Windows 2000 was compiled. If that folder was indeed created during the installation process, then this DOS upgrade feature must have been added very early on in development.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

It certainly was added during the Beta. This is also prooven, as it is fully functional at least as of Release Candidate 1 of Windows 2000. Remnants of that upgrade functionality still remained (even though not fully functional) in the Windows 2000 final release.

DOS 7.1 was actually installed with 95 and later, but 2000 and XP keep it around for boot disk creation

@D0Samp

2 ай бұрын

On XP it's actually DOS 8.0, but debranded.

@TheOCDDoc

2 ай бұрын

If memory serves me well, on 95 ver would return v7.0 for the initial release

MS-DOS was a realy good operation system to work with. IBM have a version 7. Steven says that. Greetings from Steven from the Netherlands

Even if you moved to NTFS, some remnants of DOS were still there in Windows 2000. If I remember right, there still was the old line editor edlin available on the command line.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Ack. You’re referring to the base utilities from (originally) MS-DOS 5, that were included with the Windows NT DOS VDM.

@IrisGalaxis

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Interesting they gave the utils from DOS 5 and not 6.22, why do you think that is?

@bchristian85

2 ай бұрын

Microsoft wanted you to buy Windows by the time 6.22 came along. That's why certain DOS 5 features, the most remembered being the MS-DOS Shell, were removed.@@IrisGalaxis

@markx1126

10 күн бұрын

@@IrisGalaxis Maybe (just speculating) because DOS 6 was a legal mess for Microsoft. If I recall correctly, they got sued for the DoubleSpace compression for patent infringement of what Stacker was using. They probably locked down the code afterwards, and using any code from DOS 6 probably required MS legal to review it before release. DOS 5 had none of those encumbrances, and most of the utilities probably had little to no change from 5 to 6, so using the DOS 5 code probably avoided red tape.

The mister know-it-all "Uhh-huuuh" cracked me up hahaha. Thanks for the vid, keep up the good work!

I did this many times and never noticed the folder! Now I will have to look

very thorough documentary! Very nice video 👍

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Thx :)

Those batch files you're referring to are created when upgrading from an older MS-DOS version to Windows 9x. It replaces the older versions of DBLSPACE, DRVSPACE, DEFRAG etc with the batch files, which just advise you to run them from Windows instead. The old versions were removed due to them not supporting long file names and potentially corrupting them. I'd imagine the batch files would only get migrated over to Windows 2000 if they existed from a previous upgrade from MS-DOS 6.x for example.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Good hint, that makes sense now.

I find the evolution of computing to be quit humorous. We went from DOS to a full fledged GUI back to DOS again (at least if you're a developer). My brother, who's a software engineer for Rockwell Automation, says he only uses the GUI to fire up the Linux Terminal, and then uses nothing but Terminal for the rest of the day.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

So it is, character-based input is still the way to go in many areas. The GUI is just the hood. But the console is the actual engine :-)

@technerd9655

2 ай бұрын

I've never been a fan of the CLI, lol. Sure it's great for batch files and scripting, but relies too much on a person's memory and ability to decipher the /? Help instructions to providenthe right command arguments and such. I went into support because I hated programming (assembler and basic procedural C programming was ok, but anything complex or dealing with opening or saving files, and I was long once you went beyond pseudo code, but give me some algebra, calculus, or physics, and I'm good lol). I can fumble my way around a GUI I've never seen before and teach clients how to use apps I've never seen or heard before in a matter of minutes, but could spend hours (less now with Copilot and Chat GPT thankfully) trying to figure out a PowerShell or cmd command to do something. Sometimes it's frustrating in Azure to have to open an admin PS terminal, look up how to connect to Azure, look up the documentation related to the function I want to enable, install the right PS module, then figure out the command(s) to run, just to do something that would literally be a checkbox or toggle switch in the WebUI. Just give me a crowded GUI with dozens of commands with dozens of arguments, dropdowns and browse buttons to select the files or drives, or whatever the command and options are manipulating, and toolntips for each item to help me figure out what each one does over a CLI any day. My memory is good for knowing what I need to do, but not for what each terminal command does and the arguments I need for it, but a GUIngives you so much info easily accessible and dynamic. Heck a generative interactive AI that can do the same as a CLI would be fine too.

@firenado4295

2 ай бұрын

@@technerd9655 see I have a love-hate relationship with CLIs. I like them because if you use them enough you will gain a muscle memory of the commands and even be able to stack them together in a one-liner. This is much faster and easier to understand as GUIs are too cluttering and detracting for many uses, or just plainly badly made like web UIs for appliances like routers and NAS devices. HOWEVER, that being said its a pain in the backside to get to that point of familiarity with the CLI, especially if its something proprietary. The other sticky point is typos, hot damn the amount to times I have swarn like a sailor at a computer because of a miss spelling. In short, I hate fafing around with menus and checkboxes to configure something. Give me a .conf file and nano any day or just a set of commands with good documentation and I will fine the CLI option easier every time.

Just subbed - love vintage software/hardware vids and channels. Cheers!

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Glad you liked it! :)

The reason why Ms dos 7.1 is hidden in 2000 is because of NTVDM. nTVDM is NT Virtual DOS machine, made to run 16-bit apps, Windows 3.0 GUI apps, and DOS apps and requires Ms dos files for it to work. Even Windows 10 x86 has the crippled MS-DOS 8. Only x86 NT has NTVDM.

Win2k was the best version ever!

Good old dos days

another fun trick I discovered during my NT days.... upgrade a win 9x to NT4.0.... the PnP services and drivers will stay running through the upgrade process, giving NT which wasnt a PnP compatible OS full Win 9x PnP support... did that a few times when finding drivers was alot more time consuming than it is now.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Wait what!?

@thekikendallsautoandrandom1271

3 ай бұрын

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR yeah. There was a trick to get it to work, but we did it on our old government computers fairly regularly. Then again im old and my memory slips.. SQUIRREL! Lol

@thekikendallsautoandrandom1271

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR yoh can also install the pnpisa.inf file off the NT4.0 cd, and it will give you pnp detect capability. Dirty little tricks

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Now you're triggering me ... I think I'll have to look into this. Didn't now about this myself.

Interesting tidbits and history, subscribed.

Best Operating System Ever! It just needs a 64 bit version making.

@mistie710

3 ай бұрын

To an extent, I agree. Windows 2000 was not only a pretty stable system but it provided a platform for the future development of so many parts of the successive versions, from XP right up to the current versions, both desktop and server versions. Mind you, I was impressed with Windows 7 which was pretty much the last version that I was satisfied with, especially with all the spyware that infested W8, W10 and W11 and their server counterparts.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Windows 2000 & Windows 7 for me it was!

I updaded from Win9x (mostly from Win98, few times from Win95 and maybe once from ME) to Win 2k or XP and, sometimes I got the bootmenu entry to boot to MSDOS or to "previous OS" or to "previous version of MSDOS". That depended on the OS version (SP, OSR, etc) being updaded and the actual OS used to update and, as you said, the settings used to update (like conveting to NTFS the HDD). Yes, I saw that MSDOS7 folder because I use Total Commander instead the Windows Explorer (that I deeply hate) with "show hidden files" option turned on, but I never gave it a tought, mainly because I could have the (almost) entire Dos7 OS on the EBD made by Win9x if I really needed it.

Digging around in Windows even now can be like going into an old storage loft, you find bits of history from last century still kicking around. It makes me want to set my start up sound to tada.wav again and progman and fileman (they still kicked around in W95 as well I believe)

You still could try to upgrade Windows 98 Frist Edition (4.10.1998). You tried with the Second Edition (4.10.2222).

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

I actually did, though the outcome is the same as described in the video.

@southernflatland

3 ай бұрын

There's actually not much difference between the two under the hood. The main difference with 98 Second Edition is improvements and bug fixes to the USB subsystem.

@steeviebops

2 ай бұрын

I was wondering this myself because the timestamps of the files in the MSDOS7 directory in the KB article were those from the first edition of 98.

Thank you algorithm for suggesting your channel to me.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

(Distant voice seemingly coming from nowhere) „you‘re welcome“

Great video! It's one thing for the galaxy brains in the comments to say "well duh", quite another to demonstrate the exact how and why in a straightforward way like you did in the video. Keep up the good work 👍

If my memory serves me correctly, you can install both windows 98 and 2000 on the same partition. When you do that the "DOS" boot menu will be generated. I would assume it would also work if you installed an older version of DOS on the drive and did a fresh 2000 install with out formatting.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Indeed, that's when you did a parallel or multi-boot install, i.e. by *not* choosing the _upgrade_ option. In that case, you'd end up with both installed side-by-side.

I never knew that about Windows 2000, I'll have to try that with my disks

Bring it back to life?? YUSSSSS DOS RULES!

I think this was probably something that was planned before ME came into the picture. Once ME began development, MS likely didn't see a need to add MS Dos support to win2k. I think, however, what went wrong is that because the MSDos files were hidden. They forgot to remove the process where windows 2000 would copy over the legacy dos files. Could be interesting to check if earlier Windows NT releases possibly did something similar.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

To give another perspective here, check out my other video, kzread.info/dash/bejne/eplp17SdnJvJmLw.html, which goes a bit into the history of Windows Me. When Windows 2000 was released, there was no Windows Me nowhere in sight. Microsoft did work at the time at a consumer operating system, which was codenamed Neptune, but all based on NT 5/Windows 2000. It was only some time into the project, that Microsoft decided to scrap "Neptune" and develop Windows Me. At that point, Windows 2000 was long released already. For certain, it's a left-over of some sorts. They had something in mind adding this hidden DOS functionality during the upgrade process. The fact that's it disfunctional in the final release points pretty clearly into a left-over thing.

..👀 very cool! Also for the algorithms.

Interesting topic!

German Windows 98 brings back memories as one of my friends got his PC second hand from his uncle living in Austria…

Good channel and vid, subbed

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Happy to hear you liked it!

I will look tonight - but have you looked into the Windows 2000 CABs just to see if any MSDOS is lurking there?

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

I did, yes. There's no MS-DOS in Windows 2000. There is only the default MS-DOS 5 derived DOS subset used for the NTVDM, as was expected. But the MS-DOS 7 mentioned here definitely came from the previous Windows version during the upgrade.

@jrherita

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR thanks! An interesting forensics on your part here. I used PC DOS around the 6.x era and OS/2 until NT4 myself. Keep these cool videos coming please:)

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

@@jrherita no worries, they will!

I assume you get at least a working DOS out of Windows Me if you apply the hack that replaces the DOS kernel with the "recovery" one from the boot floppy.

I still like DOS and will use it when I can.

Weird, but interesting. I never used the upgrade options as I always added an additional hard drive to dual boot and test the new versions, usually from the betas which were 'acquired'.

Sehr schön dass dein Rechner ist auf Deutsch.

First video of yours I've played and I was just going to listen, but then I thought I heard a sound that's a dog whistle for me: The snap of the motherboard tray on an SGI O2 being ejected. I rewind and sure enough there it is.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

@Bunker278 Be my guest, there's a few SGI related videos on this channel.

10:44 Windows Millenium is the intermidient Windows 9x version that never came out. it still had an MS-DOS Mode as it was verry similar to Windows 98

@Anvilshock

2 ай бұрын

"Millenium", with a single n, doesn't refer to 1000 years. It refers to 1000 ...holes.

Can you run Windows 3.1 on MSDOS 7?

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Yes, with MS-DOS 7 that's still possible. The also noted MS-DOS 8 (Windows Me's underlay) is a different thing. There, heaving patching is needed, and still, MS-DOS 8 can't run Windows 3.1 in 386 enhanced mode (only standard mode does).

Didn't know that. But I would never have upgraded from that strange Windows 9x line to the NT-kernel based Windows 2000 on a production system, that can't be a good idea ;)... But interesting experiment.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

I always preferred clean installs, but for friends and friends of friends back then it was sometimes the only way to inherit the preinstalled software of questionable origins …

Excellent video, I do have a question though, where did you learn English? There's a mix of Irish and South African in your accent, very unique and very easy to understand!

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

very good

From what I remember the Windows 2000 (maybe even XP) format util did provide an option to create a bootable DOS floppy. Don't know what version that one reported.

@eugrus

3 ай бұрын

Correction: looks like that option was introduced to NT systems with XP and removed from Windows 10: an MS-DOS image for that purpose was stored in diskcopy.dll

Alter, hast du die VM wirklich im Schildkrötenmodus betrieben, das hat doch bestimmt ne halbe Ewigkeit gedauert. Ich hab mal versucht XP so zu installieren, da macht man ja eine Weltreise bevor das fertig ist.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Ja, aber es geht eigentlich noch von der Geschwindigkeit her. DOS und Win9x sind nicht so anspruchsvoll, dass das gross ins Gewicht fällt. Die Installationsdurchgänge dauern trotzdem nur wenige Minuten. Bewusst ist die Entscheidung für Turtle Mode allerdings nichts. Ich lasse die Emulation auf einem Mac laufen, und VirtualBox ist mit Sonoma und dem mac Hypervisor (noch) nicht kompatibel. Daher gibt's da im Moment keine Hardware Acceleration.

I liked the documentation of this phenomenon and your thourough explanation for all scenarios

I know windows 98 restart to dos mode solved another batch of dos programs that would just not run under windows 95 no matter how you setup the properties. I'm wondering if this was in the works to keep large companies and governments happy. Then before release removed to have everybody move forward.

You know who would know some things about this? Dave Plummer (Dave’s Garage).

Doesn't windows 2000 let you run cmd and command (dos) to keep compatiblity

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Yes, Windows 2000 has both the native command processor (CMD, not DOS compatible), and the DOS Prompt (technically, this is the NTVDM aka NT Virtual DOS Machine). The latter provides a heavily modified MS-DOS 5 subset, including it's own verison of IO.SYS (called NTIO.SYS), to add a good level of DOS compatibility.

Windows 98SE or ME might have been a better source for MS-DOS 7? Pretty sure I rebuilt an MS-DOS 7.1 floppy disk install, two decades ago.

@Kobold666

3 ай бұрын

It worked fine with WinME, only required a quick patch to boot into DOS. Some missing stuff could be taken from DOS 6.22.

Maybe you should try installing English versions for all those '98 strings to be substituted. I guess since they've removed MS-DOS from the boot menu, they might have not bothered to translate new text documents for the DOS they've decided to scrape off completely

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Halfway through the episode, when I'm re-running the same procedure again over pre-releases, betas and Release Candidates, the base OS was always english, as you can't cross-upgrade between language versions. But doesn't change the effect described here. The functionality is only working when using RC3 for the upgrade. Even English Win98 to Win2k final release leaves it over non-functional.

For me, I always installed Dos 6.22 then windows 98, and when i moved to XP i did the same, this was my main function as i prefered using my Dos based programs for coding and moving around the Directories, I mostly used the Windows GUI for making logo's or listening to music or watching some films, It's a shame they removed this option with current windows, as I'd prefer to have a shell to boot in to, rather then Winblows 10 / 11 ect.., I guess it's why linux is the kind of OS's for real tech guys.

@jacquelineliu2641

3 ай бұрын

You're not a "real tech guy" if you think it's possible. NT is not DOS-based. 9x is. If you want a DOS installation to use alongside NT you can always install one, but it would not be related to NT in any way.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

The closest you could get to such an operating mode using a present day Windows in "CLI only" mode, would be Windows Server Core, which just boots into a CLI.

@jacquelineliu2641

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Isn't that just running cmd.exe instead of explorer.exe? This effect can be accomplished with some registry tweaking even on client Windows.

never knew this....

Huh... so not just DOS7 is an actual thing but also can you actually upgrade from Windows 1 all the way up to 11 (as silly as it reads given we know how many more versions actually exist) going over 2000. Two things learned in one video.

@LostieTrekieTechie

3 ай бұрын

The channel @TheRasteri has a video doing just that "Chain of Fools 2017 - Every windows version upgraded through"

@heinrichagrippa5681

3 ай бұрын

@@LostieTrekieTechie ​ That video was 1 to 10, which was everything in 2017. Unfortunately, the sequence hits a dead end there, with no official way to go from a 32-bit Widows 10 to 64-bit Windows 11. However, there's a (really long) video, "Upgrading From Windows 1.0 To Windows 11 On Real Hardware", where this is circumvented by taking a detour from 32-bit Windows 7 to a beta version of a 64-bit Windows 8, then upgrading to the standard release of 64-bit Win8 and continuing from there.

Will that work with xp?

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

No idea, I didn't investigate into XP, wether it had a similar behaviour in the upgrade installer.

One comment on that there is no DEFRAG for msdos 7 and fat32 and undelete and the utils for fat32 at least defrag is the only one is missing. There was an msdos 6.25 for military use which supports fat32.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

+msbackup and +msav, memmaker, etc. It‘s quiet a lot missing as when compared to the last feature complete version of MS-DOS. I‘ve been researching on the rumored MS-DOS 6.25 (and also 6.23 and 6.24) a while ago to get hold of then. Though all what I‘ve found, is just that: rumors. It‘s been discussed in a few forums over the past twenty years, but noone actually has proof for the existence of those. As far as I‘m concerned, I believe if these DOS versions actually had existed, then they would have been leaked and surfacing already a long time ago.

@asanjuas

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR don't worry msbackup works well msav IS not needed but defrag 😭🤬

@ruben_balea

3 ай бұрын

I don't know what MS could have made for the military but Russian PTS-DOS 32 (by PhysTechSoft*) is FAT32 compatible and "military certified" and it's available in English. *Paragon Software also sold some earlier versions of PTS-DOS

@Raletia

3 ай бұрын

@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Silly Idea, but what if you upgraded from Dos 6.22 (with or without Win 3.x) to Win9x; then upgraded that to windows 2000?

In this directory C:\Program Files\Windows NT\Accessories on my Windows 11 machinne is wordpad

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, that's as well an old dinosaur. Though by somewhen in 2023 I remember reading that Microsoft announced it to be finally removed from Windows 11. And I think they already removed WordPad it in the default install since 23H2.

Windows 2000 was a amazing operating system, my hope was to forget all the old stuff, xp was in the beginning not nice, but i never understood it. os2 could play dos games without problems in a window or full-screen, but Microsoft made a half transition, never got it right 😞

I miss 2k. Such a diligent, subservient OS that worked and didn't treat you like you needed special help or tried to indoctrinate you with the thought that your computer was no longer yours.

@realGBx64

2 ай бұрын

This was an illusion though. To really have your computer for yourself, you need to have a free software operating system. I run Linux for that reason.

@Anvilshock

2 ай бұрын

@@realGBx64Yeah, well, I need to get work done, not entertain myself entertaining an OS whose guides never quite apply to whichever flavour, mood, and whim of a distribution and tool I happen to encounter at any given moment.

@Anvilshock

2 ай бұрын

@@realGBx64Yeah, well, I need to get work done, not waste time getting an OS to do its job while trying to read guides that never quite apply.

@realGBx64

2 ай бұрын

@@Anvilshock tell me you haven’t used linux in 20 years without telling me

@Anvilshock

2 ай бұрын

@@realGBx64Never said I haven't. Otherwise how could I have reported back with the disappointment as stated?

I'm having a bit of a Mandela effect type moment from this video(and Wikipedia). I remember going into dos from windows 95. And it used to say it was dos 6.22. According to you and wikipedia. That should have been dos 7

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Well, not necessarily. True, the "DOS" that came with Windows 95, just called itself "Windows 95" anyway via the "ver" command, and was indeed MS-DOS 7. But if you were upgrading from an older MS-DOS onto Windows 95, the old DOS version would be retained as well, and made available for booting into via the "boot previous verison of MS-DOS" option in the boot menu. Maybe you had it configured like that back then.

@roygunnargranmo4641

2 ай бұрын

It is possible that is the explanation. We got the computer in 1996. When i was 8 years old. It was looking very dos-like. Black screen white text. We didn't understand what was going on with that, at the time. At that point: we didn't have much experience with computers. So we got help "fixing it". Fixing it: may have been installing windows over dos. As far at i remember. When you went into the windows 95 start menu. One of the fist options(lowest on the menu) got you into dos. Maybe it was on the dialog box you would get when turning of the computer(or maybe not). When booting into dos there were a couple of lines of text saying something like: Microsoft Dos 6.22... And some copyright info or something like that @@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

I wouldn't worry much that your experience differed from what that old knowlage base article said to expect. Microsoft released many "Windows 2000" packages that had the same name and version number but were different inside.

Ur videos are great, but can you use an English copy?

@t0b0

2 ай бұрын

He did, later in the video.

0:44 an ElectroBOOM moment

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Had a few of those, bit only rarely captured on camera

If you didn't run smrtdrv when installing win 2000 it would take ages

it's not that, if you had a previous dos install, win2k makes it separate like "there, boot menu you choose DOS or 2000." DOS was useful for some stuff, if you use FAT32, iirc DOS can't see NTFS and wasn't an option to rescue any NT os. otherwise NT never gave a damn bout DOS. the command prompt is nothing like DOS, can emulate some DOS stuff but not like the real thing, you'd need DOSBOX to emulate DOS on NT.

Windows 2000 was NT-based - that said, there was a Windows 98 to Windows 2000 upgrade that would leave behind remnants of DOS And NT onwards do have a text shell with DOS-like commands, but isn’t actually DOS per se

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

But very intentionally created remnants, because the upgrade as shown explicitely goes by extracting the MS-DOS core out from Win9x/WinMe during the upgrade to Windows 2000. It's true Windows 2000 is NT-based. The "DOS-like" interface you're referring to is called the NTVDM, and uses a subset of MS-DOS 5. While the Virtual DOS Machine doesn't really boot into a fully featured MS-DOS, it still starts a heavily modified DOS subsystem, that even includes IO.SYS (on NT, it's actually called NTIO.SYS), besides COMMAND.COM and many familiar DOS utilities.

@The_Temple

3 ай бұрын

I meant "DOS-like" not in reference to the interface, rather the commands that can be used by said interface. And that traces of MS DOS being even in Windows 11 wouldn't surprise me.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

@@The_Temple Windows 11 is only available as a 64-bit release, and thus Microsoft had officially removed the 16-bit WoW and NTVDM subsystems. One may never exclude some bits may be buried here and there, but I think it (DOS and remants of it) are finally largely gone.

@The_Temple

3 ай бұрын

yeah, likely trace elements in the underlying code by now - doubt ever 100% eliminated unless Microsoft would genuinely 'clean the slate' and start an entirely new code-line for a future OS (but, will that ever happen? doubt it)@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

You can make a Windows Me boot disk that is pretty much just DOS, and that will boot up your computer. It's missing some features of DOS. Back in the day, I'd add drivers like Cute Mouse for mouse support, and there was an NTFS driver you could add to read NTFS formatted disks. You can't format a disk with the /s parameter to make a bootable disk because you were supposed to use the Me start up disk utility to make a boot disk which just makes the Windows Me boot disk. Windows 9x and NT versions also included Windows 3.1 utilities in the Windows folder. There were times when I played around with using the old file manager.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, the Windows Me bootdisk wasn't actually that bad, as it included many device drivers to facilitate a recovery. However, from a pure MS-DOS point of view, the crippled format.com and sys.com commands coming with Windows Me were really a setback, as you couldn't create your own boot disk from scratch. This topic will actually be furtherly explorer in the upcoming video.

Isn't it what ME was based on?

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

Nope, Windows Me was a Win95/98 descendant (subject to next weeks video). Windows 2000 was NT based, totally different thing.

I think it's because of the possible downgrade of Win2k back to Win9X...

Well done for mentioning Windows ME without including the usually obligatory criticisms of an OS that most people on the internet seem to think is trying to seduce their sister.

So that's why everyone that in Windows ME couldn't get upgrade to Windows 2000 because ME use MS-DOS 8.

@OleAlexanderBrunaes

2 ай бұрын

@DhavidSetiawanKilluaDhavid Well, you can upgrade Windows ME to Windows 2000, even WME came after W2K.

Windows ME not 2k.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

No, it‘s all about Windows 2000 retaining DOS after a Win9x/Me upgrade.

@georgerogers1166

3 ай бұрын

​@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTORWatched the video, weird compatibility quirk.

This "Mr. Know-it-all" is pretty cringe. Anyway, the MSDOS 7 reports as Windows 4. when used with the VER command, but when used through the API it reports as version 7.10. This is also described on the wikipedia page: "The VER internal command reports the Windows version 4.00.1111, 4.10.1998, or 4.10.2222 depending on the version of Windows, while applications through the API would report version 7.10". Same for MSDOS 8.

@oggilein1

3 ай бұрын

Oh look, I think i found Mr. Know-It-All in the comments just now!

Jesus loves you!

Another clickbait video. There was never any DOS under Windows 2000, since they are an NT-class OS. But before they were named Windows 2000, they had the original name of Windows NT version something (something > 4.0). And before Windows Me got its final name, it was named Windows 2000. So it's a clickbait video.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

Another unqualified comment. The entire story of the video is, how Windows 2000 retains MS-DOS 7 by extracting it out from Win9x when doing a Win9x-to-Win2k upgrade, and how that behaviour seems to be a dropped feature from the Win2k beta. Your comment just prooves you‘ve not been watching it and missed the entire point of the story. Furthermore, Windows Me was never to become Windows 2000. Windows 2000 used to be NT 5, before getting renamed to Windows 2000. Windows Me was never an original plan, and never was it planned to be called Win2k anyway! If anything, Windows Neptune was supposed to be the next version after Win98 SE, though it was cancelled. Thus Microsoft shifted in Windows Me, as also Whistler (later be known as XP) would only come the year after. Some of this is told in this video as well, again leading to the conclusion you‘ve not been watching it. That‘s totally ok, as nobody is forcing you do, though it leaves the impression you‘re here only for flaming around. That would be ok, if you were at least having your facts straight, which you clearly don‘t. So I politely suggest you go elsewhere wasting somebody else‘s time. Thank you!

@solidstate0

2 ай бұрын

I know right? I too saw the thumbnail and immediately called bullshit - it's an msdos shell but, it does NOT run as the underlying core or kernel of the Windows os

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

2 ай бұрын

@@solidstate0 thank you for your statement. I could also have named the video „Why is there a hidden MS-DOS 7 in Windows 2000?“ People would as well yell at me that Windows 2000 is NT and in no way running on DOS. But see, that was never claimed! All what is claimed is that a hidden MS-DOS 7 is found on the hard drive besides Windows 2000. And this claim is fully correct and accurate, both factually as well from a technical perspective. There *is* a hidden MSDOS7 folder after a Win9x upgrade to Win2k. It is even technically hidden using the *hidden* file system attributes. The video explored just that, why it‘s there, under which circumstances, and why it isn’t fully working in the Win2k final release but only the Win2k Release Candidate 3. I can‘t help it if people jump from „hidden MS-DOS“ to „it‘s running on MS-DOS“. That‘s neither what the thumbnail, nor the title, nor the video description says. -TPC

I really feel like I wasted my time watching this video. Make a FreeDOS video I might feel better.

@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR

3 ай бұрын

If I wanted to make a FreeDOS video, then I would have done a FreeDOS video. But I wanted to make exactly *this* video. I'm sorry to hear you're dissatisfied, but I can't help it, nobody forced you to watch it. Still, I'll happily consider doing something on FreeDOS if there's enough interest into the topic.

@mitregel3237

2 ай бұрын

Karen read the title of your video and is upset that the video was exactly what was promised 😆😆😆. I get it, Karen gotta Karen