🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> >Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
> >MS-DOS 7.0.  Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)
> >
> You have no idea do you?

No.  You don't.

> Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
> on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
> run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at all. 
> They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read "OS/2 
> sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it was 
> dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they would 
> check for the version string and would not find it.

No one is stupid enough to look into command.com to find the string of
"MS-DOS ?.??", because there is always a DOS function under INT 21h which
return the DOS version number in registers.  They don't have to put
"MS-DOS 7.0" in the string shown by the VER command.  They can put
"MS Windows 4.0 / MS-DOS 6.5" and it will not make a different.  MS
just being honest (!!) with you to tell you that you are in real,
plain and compatible, DOS.  Win95 is run on top of DOS, but so what?

> Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
> but "Win95".  

MS is being honest again (!!!!).  You are running Win95 now after you
load the Windows GUI and kernel.  I guess if you check the "Hide
windows from program" in the DOS setting option you will get "MS-DOS"
using the VER command.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `