1. RE: OT: old com files
- Posted by sephiroth _ <euman2376 at yahoo.com> Apr 17, 2001
- 369 views
Windows XP(formerly .NET, Micro$oft's plan to kill Win-doze) sure won't, because it's an entirely new OS from what I heard. and if they don't work, you could always get an x86 emulator like Bochs(free, but doesn't emulate the Pentium RDTSC opcode and has a little problem with hardware) or VMWare Irv Mullins wrote: > Hi: > > I tried the search engines for this, but they refused to search for > "com" - > wonder why:? ;^) > > Anyway, I have a friend who uses a large number of programs compiled > back > around 1983, in .com, not .exe, format. Does anyone know if Win2k or XP > will > run these? > > Regards, > Irv > >
2. RE: OT: old com files
- Posted by Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com> Apr 18, 2001
- 346 views
You are quite wrong... Windows XP is *not* .NET and is based on Windows 2000 technology. Also, DOS-based *.com executables most certainly do run fine under Windows XP and, in fact, a number of *.com utilities are still part of the OS. For example: edit.com, diskcomp.com, diskcopy.com, format.com, mode.com, more.com, and tree.com, to name a few, all work as designed under Windows XP. Please get your facts straight before mindlessly bashing MS. -- Brian sephiroth _ wrote: > Windows XP(formerly .NET, Micro$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
- Posted by David Cuny <euphoria_coder at HOTMAIL.COM> Apr 18, 2001
- 380 views
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
- Posted by sephiroth _ <euman2376 at yahoo.com> Apr 19, 2001
- 361 views
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