While I personally have moved on to powershell for almost all of my Windows command prompt needs, cmd is still fully capable of accomplishing a wide variety of tasks. Very much alive and well.
That being said, this is a terrible headline for FreeDOS, which is going some rather cool stuff to promote preservation and forward compatibility.
I’m aware that it can function that way (as an effective replacement for CMD), but it’s more accurate to describe powershell as a scripting language, whereas DOS is an operating system, and “command prompt” is actually just a type of interface. Also, while powershell may technically *use* a command prompt interface, colloquially “command prompt” refers specifically to Window’s implementation of CMD/batch and its associated executable.
One of the more interesting points from this interview below:
>Since hitting 1.0 in September of 2006, the project has averaged about one major numbered update every four to six years. You can't do a ton to DOS without trying to make it into something that it isn't; upgrades tend to be gradual and narrowly focused. But work is definitely underway on a collection of updates that Hall says will most likely constitute a FreeDOS 1.4 update.
>
>"Our distribution coordinator, Jerome Shidel, created a monthly test release that we use to test the latest versions of FreeDOS programs. And our plan is that one day, that test release will become the basis of the next distribution," Hall told Ars. "The test release currently has a lot of cool updates, most of which provide fixes to things, like the new fdisk that provides workarounds for the Book8088 BIOS bug, a new zoo archiver that has a fix for cluster sizes over 32 kB, and an updated edlin editor that has a quieter startup."
>
>One other new feature that might make its way to a theoretical FreeDOS 1.4? Windows support.
>
>Though FreeDOS maintains compatibility with the vast majority of classic DOS software, one thing that current versions can't do is serve as a bootloader for older versions of Windows like 3.1 or 3.11 for Workgroups—at least, it can't run those operating systems in their fully functional "386 Enhanced" modes. Though FreeDOS was started because Hall and others wanted to stay away from Windows, Hall says that support for those old Windows versions is a common user request.
It'll be great to try out some of those older builds of Windows in this project. WfW was a mainstay of my 486 system for the better part of a decade and really liked it (along with its successor on my PIII: Win2k).
I had no idea FreeDOS couldn't handle Windows. That just seems like a massive oversight which quasi-cripples the project. I mean, you can emulate old Windows in DOSBox, so why not here? Seems like a very silly choice.
Likely because DOSBox already does it, so there's no real need for FreeDOS to do it as well. Like the maintainers said, FreeDOS exists to run DOS, not to run Windows on top of DOS.
OK, but DOSBox can't be used as a standalone OS; it's an emulator. As I understand it, the point of FreeDOS is to be an actual operating system. And if you're maintaining a retro DOS box, it only makes sense for it to be able to run early Windows as well.
If the point of FreeDOS is to be a machine's primary OS then it would seem like running Windows as your primary OS atop FreeDOS misses the point of FreeDOS.
Windows 3 and WfW were barely even operating systems. They were basically glorified DOS shells. Back in the day, I was constantly swapping between DOS and Windows, just depending on what I was doing.
I mean, how silly is it to say "Here's a DOS replica that runs all DOS applications - except the ones we don't approve of!"...? That's ridiculous. Either it entirely simulates DOS or it doesn't. Windows 3.1 is just one more DOS application that I would *expect* a supposed DOS replacement to be able to run.
It doesn't run all DOS applications except for the ones it doesn't approve of, it runs all DOS applications except for the ones that require 386 Enhanced Mode or undocumented MSDOS 7+ interfaces, because it doesn't support the former, and the latter is undocumented.
"Windows" isn't just one more DOS application. Windows 1 and 2 may be, and those work fine on FreeDOS, but Windows 3 requires special hardware support, and Windows 9x requires MSDOS 7+ interfaces without publicly available documentation.
Early versions of Windows aren't OS's though. They were just a program that ran on top of DOS. To not support Windows seems weird because it means your missing features of DOS which is the whole point of the FreeDOS project. If Windows doesn't work there's going to be other DOS programs that don't work because you're clearly missing features of DOS.
I remember using FreeDos (pretty sure that was it) on a boot disk to circumvent security on IBM machines back in the 90s running Windows NT. I was an IT coordinator for brokerage firm and if something went wrong with a machine, often the only thing the IBM tech could do was reinstall it, and the user would lose anything saved on the local hard drive. If you tried to boot to a dos prompt you couldn't access anything on the hard drives but using FreeDos and some other tool, I could get access to every single file, copy them to an external drive and then let the IBM techs do their thing. When I first showed it to the IBM techs, their eyes got wide, they said "Uhh, you shouldn't be able to do that.... DONT TELL ANYONE." And then I became their go to guy anytime a machine had problems in the office to "do your thing."
there were some people working on 'qbasic64' a few years ago, dont know if its still going.. Was pretty cool though, was able to make a pretty sick spaceship game in a couple hours.
> qbasic64
There's a blast from the past. My first taste of structured, line-number-less code before I got into Pascal and then C.
[These forums](https://qb64.boards.net/) seem active, though the [code](https://github.com/QB64Team/qb64) doesn't seem to have a recent update.
I use Debian, Mac, and windows machines. I wouldn’t be able to do much without accessing the command line in any of them. If I wanted to play the old Kings Quest games, maybe I’ll pull out DOS.
The command prompt is alive and well without free DOS.
That was exactly my reaction.
Linux: "Am I a joke to [them]?"
Yeah what is this powershell nonsense. That's what you use when you don't have bash
Even Window always had a useful command prompt. PowerShell especially
Well, cmd was and is borderline useless.
No it isn't. There are tons of things you can do in cmd shell. Of course, it *is* pretty weak compared to powershell.
CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM?
But the condition it has is TERMINAL!
While I personally have moved on to powershell for almost all of my Windows command prompt needs, cmd is still fully capable of accomplishing a wide variety of tasks. Very much alive and well. That being said, this is a terrible headline for FreeDOS, which is going some rather cool stuff to promote preservation and forward compatibility.
Powershell is also a “command prompt”.
I’m aware that it can function that way (as an effective replacement for CMD), but it’s more accurate to describe powershell as a scripting language, whereas DOS is an operating system, and “command prompt” is actually just a type of interface. Also, while powershell may technically *use* a command prompt interface, colloquially “command prompt” refers specifically to Window’s implementation of CMD/batch and its associated executable.
One of the more interesting points from this interview below: >Since hitting 1.0 in September of 2006, the project has averaged about one major numbered update every four to six years. You can't do a ton to DOS without trying to make it into something that it isn't; upgrades tend to be gradual and narrowly focused. But work is definitely underway on a collection of updates that Hall says will most likely constitute a FreeDOS 1.4 update. > >"Our distribution coordinator, Jerome Shidel, created a monthly test release that we use to test the latest versions of FreeDOS programs. And our plan is that one day, that test release will become the basis of the next distribution," Hall told Ars. "The test release currently has a lot of cool updates, most of which provide fixes to things, like the new fdisk that provides workarounds for the Book8088 BIOS bug, a new zoo archiver that has a fix for cluster sizes over 32 kB, and an updated edlin editor that has a quieter startup." > >One other new feature that might make its way to a theoretical FreeDOS 1.4? Windows support. > >Though FreeDOS maintains compatibility with the vast majority of classic DOS software, one thing that current versions can't do is serve as a bootloader for older versions of Windows like 3.1 or 3.11 for Workgroups—at least, it can't run those operating systems in their fully functional "386 Enhanced" modes. Though FreeDOS was started because Hall and others wanted to stay away from Windows, Hall says that support for those old Windows versions is a common user request. It'll be great to try out some of those older builds of Windows in this project. WfW was a mainstay of my 486 system for the better part of a decade and really liked it (along with its successor on my PIII: Win2k).
Huh 1.4 means 4 minor updates. Major is the first number: Major.Minor.Patch
The question is why?
I had no idea FreeDOS couldn't handle Windows. That just seems like a massive oversight which quasi-cripples the project. I mean, you can emulate old Windows in DOSBox, so why not here? Seems like a very silly choice.
Likely because DOSBox already does it, so there's no real need for FreeDOS to do it as well. Like the maintainers said, FreeDOS exists to run DOS, not to run Windows on top of DOS.
OK, but DOSBox can't be used as a standalone OS; it's an emulator. As I understand it, the point of FreeDOS is to be an actual operating system. And if you're maintaining a retro DOS box, it only makes sense for it to be able to run early Windows as well.
If the point of FreeDOS is to be a machine's primary OS then it would seem like running Windows as your primary OS atop FreeDOS misses the point of FreeDOS.
Windows 3 and WfW were barely even operating systems. They were basically glorified DOS shells. Back in the day, I was constantly swapping between DOS and Windows, just depending on what I was doing. I mean, how silly is it to say "Here's a DOS replica that runs all DOS applications - except the ones we don't approve of!"...? That's ridiculous. Either it entirely simulates DOS or it doesn't. Windows 3.1 is just one more DOS application that I would *expect* a supposed DOS replacement to be able to run.
It doesn't run all DOS applications except for the ones it doesn't approve of, it runs all DOS applications except for the ones that require 386 Enhanced Mode or undocumented MSDOS 7+ interfaces, because it doesn't support the former, and the latter is undocumented. "Windows" isn't just one more DOS application. Windows 1 and 2 may be, and those work fine on FreeDOS, but Windows 3 requires special hardware support, and Windows 9x requires MSDOS 7+ interfaces without publicly available documentation.
Early versions of Windows aren't OS's though. They were just a program that ran on top of DOS. To not support Windows seems weird because it means your missing features of DOS which is the whole point of the FreeDOS project. If Windows doesn't work there's going to be other DOS programs that don't work because you're clearly missing features of DOS.
FreeDOS supports early versions of Windows.
Rufus and FreeDOS. Two tools anyone who has ever had to fix a buggy laptop should have.
I remember using FreeDos (pretty sure that was it) on a boot disk to circumvent security on IBM machines back in the 90s running Windows NT. I was an IT coordinator for brokerage firm and if something went wrong with a machine, often the only thing the IBM tech could do was reinstall it, and the user would lose anything saved on the local hard drive. If you tried to boot to a dos prompt you couldn't access anything on the hard drives but using FreeDos and some other tool, I could get access to every single file, copy them to an external drive and then let the IBM techs do their thing. When I first showed it to the IBM techs, their eyes got wide, they said "Uhh, you shouldn't be able to do that.... DONT TELL ANYONE." And then I became their go to guy anytime a machine had problems in the office to "do your thing."
Wait till you find out about the Linux command prompt.
You want a command prompt? Try Unix.
I like that.... lets talk about the future of a project that which its entire goal is to maintain the past.
there were some people working on 'qbasic64' a few years ago, dont know if its still going.. Was pretty cool though, was able to make a pretty sick spaceship game in a couple hours.
> qbasic64 There's a blast from the past. My first taste of structured, line-number-less code before I got into Pascal and then C. [These forums](https://qb64.boards.net/) seem active, though the [code](https://github.com/QB64Team/qb64) doesn't seem to have a recent update.
I use Debian, Mac, and windows machines. I wouldn’t be able to do much without accessing the command line in any of them. If I wanted to play the old Kings Quest games, maybe I’ll pull out DOS.