1. RE: OT: old com files
Windows XP(formerly .NET, Micro$oft's plan to kill Win-doze) sure won't,
because it's an entirely new OS from what I heard. and if they don't
work, you could always get an x86 emulator like Bochs(free, but doesn't
emulate the Pentium RDTSC opcode and has a little problem with hardware)
or VMWare
Irv Mullins wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I tried the search engines for this, but they refused to search for
> "com" -
> wonder why:? ;^)
>
> Anyway, I have a friend who uses a large number of programs compiled
> back
> around 1983, in .com, not .exe, format. Does anyone know if Win2k or XP
> will
> run these?
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
>
2. RE: OT: old com files
You are quite wrong...
Windows XP is *not* .NET and is based on Windows 2000 technology. Also,
DOS-based *.com executables most certainly do run fine under Windows XP
and, in fact, a number of *.com utilities are still part of the OS. For
example: edit.com, diskcomp.com, diskcopy.com, format.com, mode.com,
more.com, and tree.com, to name a few, all work as designed under
Windows XP.
Please get your facts straight before mindlessly bashing MS.
-- Brian
sephiroth _ wrote:
> Windows XP(formerly .NET, Micro$oft's plan to kill Win-doze) sure won't,
>
> because it's an entirely new OS from what I heard. and if they don't
> work, you could always get an x86 emulator like Bochs(free, but doesn't
> emulate the Pentium RDTSC opcode and has a little problem with hardware)
>
> or VMWare
>
> Irv Mullins wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > I tried the search engines for this, but they refused to search for
> > "com" -
> > wonder why:? ;^)
> >
> > Anyway, I have a friend who uses a large number of programs compiled
> > back
> > around 1983, in .com, not .exe, format. Does anyone know if Win2k or XP
> > will
> > run these?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Irv
3. RE: OT: old com files
Brian Broker wrote:
>Please get your facts straight before mindlessly bashing MS.
Facts straightened.
Mindless bashing resumed... 
-- David Cuny
4. RE: OT: old com files
Brian Broker wrote:
> You are quite wrong...
>
> Windows XP is *not* .NET and is based on Windows 2000 technology.
okay...
Also,
> DOS-based *.com executables most certainly do run fine under Windows XP
> and, in fact, a number of *.com utilities are still part of the OS. For
>
> example: edit.com, diskcomp.com, diskcopy.com, format.com, mode.com,
> more.com, and tree.com, to name a few, all work as designed under
> Windows XP.
actually, edit.com is an EXE file if you look at the header. MS probably
kept the extension for compatibility
