I am just about to start an OS course and as an Apple user I am not very familiar with the underlying details of Windows OS. I was wondering, is MS DOS still used with Windows running on top or is ONLY Windows used now as the OS? I was a little confused because I read somewhere that MS-DOS is used for booting but Windows has all other OS capabilities built into it and thus is used for all other OS operations...
There are two distinct lineages when it comes to Microsoft Windows, and it doesn't help things when people write things about one lineage that they have learned about the other.
What also doesn't help is when people mistakenly talk of a "DOS prompt" in Windows NT, as has even happened in answers here. Aside from the fact that it is command interpreters that prompt, not operating systems, this conflates "DOS" with "textual user interface" and "command interpreter", neither of which are in actuality synonymous with DOS. DOS is a family of operating systems: MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, OpenDOS, et cetera.
If one has a command prompt window open on Windows NT then one is almost always running
Ironically, given that Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993, the Windows NT lineage actually is the not-based-upon-DOS Windows-is-the-operating-system system that all of the people in the middle 1990s were trying to convince the world that DOS+Windows 95 was.
And, eighteen years later, we're still trying to get it through to some people that Windows NT doesn't work like DOS and never has. ☺
Actually, now Windows doesn't use DOS anymore. Prompt to DOS (or cmd) is emulated over Windows XP, Vista or Seven. Windows boot up from it`s own resources.
No. All Windows versions prior to those with the "NT kernel" were more like a GUI on top of DOS. With NT, which became particularly commonplace with the introduction of Windows XP (and Windows Vista and Windows 7 both use the NT kernel as well), the need to use DOS as the underlying OS was eliminated.
32-bit versions of Windows still have a DOS prompt, which can be run by entering
You'd probably be best to view the command prompt as being more like a specialized application that can be used to run DOS programs and/or start Windows programs from the command-line.
Note: The terminology "DOS prompt" was commonly used to describe the "command prompt" prior to the introduction of the NT kernel. Although many people still use the term "DOS prompt" today (because they use it to run many of the same commands, which were originally referred to as "DOS commands," that are typically available in a DOS environment), the term "command prompt" is technically correct in NT variants of Windows.
Additionally Windows 95 wasn't entirely a GUI on top of DOS. Read more here:
More as an anwer to Randolf, but he isn't the only one, confusing command line interfaces and DOS repeatedly.
Note, that many of the [DOS] and [MS-DOS] tags suffer from the same mistake: MS-DOS initially had only a textmode, a commandline interface called
Then windows was build on top of DOS (2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11), where an icon for DOS-Box reappeared inside windows, as a name for the command interface inside windows.
But in Windows-NT and in Windows-95 or -98 MS-DOS was abandoned, but a command-interpreter,
Calling this MS-DOS-style is misleading, since DOS or MS-DOS whern't the ones which first came up with it. It's much older.
Even on Windows it wasn't restricted to run DOS-commands - a common practice of batch-file writing was, to specify some parameters, before starting a Windows program. For example setting a CLASSPATH, JAVA_HOME, java-parameters like -Xmx and so on for a Java-program.
Many people think command line interfaces are a relict of former times - who don't know the power of processing thousands of files with a few keystrokes. They don't know of wsh and monad either. But for professionals, a command interpreter is on windows nearly as useful as on Unix or Linux. It's not that well known, but it is essential for many administrators.
There is even a port of the gnu-toolchain, with an sh.exe and sed, awk, bc, tail, rev, cat and all that as native win32 apps.
Maybe you can run old DOS-programs under cmd.exe, but you can't run Windows programs in DOS mode, so don't keep telling the people, that cmd.exe is DOS - it isn't. And it isn't DOS-like. What you mean, is an
is almost always misleading terminology. It might be appropriate for an amateur, but if you want your audience to understand, what you're talking about, you should ask yourself: Is it restricted to a special OS, to DOS? Is the CLI-style best named 'DOS-style'? Is this historically correct? Does your audience know DOS at all? Is it helpful in understanding? Do those programs really run on DOS?
You need the right expressions, sharp as the knife of a surgeon, to explain complicated things. Wrong expressions provoke wrong impressions in the brain of your audience. Sloppy expressions are worse than nothing. Avoid them. Use
Correct misleading tags on SU, SE and other sides.
In Windows NT family (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7) it's DOS independent. There are only DOS emulators for backward compatibility.
However there are still some limitation which are consequences of compatibility with DOS in early NT days. For example you are not able to create file or directory named "CON" or "PRN" because those are reserved names to represent devices in DOS.