I want a modern DOS

[Zen3001]

Here's what randomly came into my mind, a modern dos like os.
just add a pointer to dos but no other graphics, it should still be possible to run other graphic applications
I don't see why this would not work other then some technical issues (I don't know how make operating systems)
if you're on windows, launch cmd go into fullscreen and try playing gzdoom and you'll get a good taste of what I want.
here's a picture of what I'm imagining:


you're probably asking "Why would anyone make this?"
because dos is fun, it makes me feel like a computer wizard and scares normal people.

now I'm expecting one of you to come up with some obvious problem and completely ruin my imagination

[Rachael]

now I'm expecting one of you to come up with some obvious problem and completely ruin my imagination

DOS is overly simplistic with a tiny kernel, depending almost entirely on BIOS calls and the programs themselves, to abstract the hardware and system. In fact, the only thing the DOS kernel does (that's significant, anyway), at all, is create a file system and a standard by which to load TSR's into memory.

With modern OS's that just does not work, for obvious reasons - the kernel and its drivers provide a real abstraction layer as well as task switching that was never present in DOS.

The closest you'll get is Linux - if you want to rewrite command.com for the Linux kernel - you'll get pretty much what you want. And Linux can use the "mode 03h" text mode, just like DOS - something that was removed since the introduction of WDDM in Windows Vista.

[Arctangent]

Frankly I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of way to at least fake mode 03h in modern Windows, too - through a program, granted, but that should be more than enough considering that that seems like all you actually want.

Heck, a fullscreen cmd.exe would probably be enough for that.

[Zen3001]

Heck, a fullscreen cmd.exe would probably be enough for that.

you can go fullscreen by pressing alt+enter

[Rachael]

Frankly I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of way to at least fake mode 03h in modern Windows, too - through a program, granted, but that should be more than enough considering that that seems like all you actually want.

Heck, a fullscreen cmd.exe would probably be enough for that.

He seems to have accomplished that, but for those wanting a more authentic mode 03h, DOSBox emulates one nicely, but obviously it's not the real thing.

[SouthernLion]

now I'm expecting one of you to come up with some obvious problem and completely ruin my imagination

DOS is overly simplistic with a tiny kernel, depending almost entirely on BIOS calls and the programs themselves, to abstract the hardware and system. In fact, the only thing the DOS kernel does (that's significant, anyway), at all, is create a file system and a standard by which to load TSR's into memory.

With modern OS's that just does not work, for obvious reasons - the kernel and its drivers provide a real abstraction layer as well as task switching that was never present in DOS.

The closest you'll get is Linux - if you want to rewrite command.com for the Linux kernel - you'll get pretty much what you want. And Linux can use the "mode 03h" text mode, just like DOS - something that was removed since the introduction of WDDM in Windows Vista.

Windows was DOS based until like Windows XP, right? I don't know if I have that correct.

[InsanityBringer]

It kinda was. The "consumer" line of Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all kinda used DOS as a bootloader, though at this point they were doing most of the operating system things themselves, with DOS being used only for a small amount of things. In the early 90s, however, the Windows NT line forked off which abandoned DOS and became a full operating system. Windows NT was aimed squarely at businesses until Windows XP, where they ended up unifying the consumer and business lines and made everything NT based.

[Rachael]

I've heard many things about how Windows 3.x/9x (non-NT) worked. InsanityBringer is right that it used DOS as a boot loader, but as soon as its own kernel took over it took over a lot of operating system functions. I think it allowed IO.SYS (the original DOS kernel) to continue managing the file system, because I remember looking up my interrupt list inside Windows 95/98 one time and seeing it linked to a lot of things.

NT originally came from OS/2 which was a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. Things got a little hairy and they parted ways, and Microsoft took what they could from the OS/2 kernel code and Windows NT 3.5 was the result.

Later they redid the user interface, based on research and user feedback, in order to give their Windows series more of a "desktop" like feel - something OS/2 had, but they could not take that from OS/2. What resulted from that was Windows Explorer, a brand new shell that included a taskbar and a start menu, first introduced in Windows 95 and still in use to this day. Other than that, Windows 95 was nothing more than Windows 3.x with the ability to run 32-bit apps in protected mode - but they did push the version number to 4.0 since there were other improvements as well.

They took the new explorer shell and introduced it to their Windows NT series, and NT 4 was the result. Improvements to that were later introduced to both 98 (DOS-based) and 2000 (NT-based), and eventually to Windows ME, and then they decided to make even more changes to the user interface and Windows XP was the result, which, like InsanityBringer said, was intended to be the continuation of both the NT and 9x series, combining them to a unified kernel structure.

[Cacodemon345]

Speaking of Windows 2000, I think that it would be the closest to a NT-based consumer OS, considering the amount of improvements it introduced from Windows 9x, like WDM, Active Desktop. The fact that it was able to run games at a higher performance than 98 is a plus, alongside DX7.0 and other stuff. Hell, quite a lot of people (at home) actually bought Windows 2000 under the assumption that it was an intended upgrade path from 98.

It is also the only thing that actually has proper DDraw support, since XP and later has issues with DDraw games concerning palette issues. It is also the only thing that contains the ability to play sound/music right from the Windows Explorer, a feature unique to it that never got its way into Windows XP (which slightly scrapped WebView).

Speaking of Windows ME, it sucks as it is really buggy. It is probably one of the worst Windows release ever, alongside Windows Vista.

[MartinHowe]

@Cacodemon345 - totally agree! I knew 2000 wasn't the official upgrade path from 98, but could see the way the wind was blowing so bought it anyway in preference to Me - which I had already seen/heard enough of to make me sick I didn't use many pure DOS progams by then, and the few I did worked.

[Rachael]

Windows ME was a huge downgrade from 2000, IMO, despite being newer.

The only innovation it had was System Restore, which later got ported to Windows XP anyhow and used with all later systems.

But otherwise, it was the same old Windows 3.1 + MS DOS that ever it was, just with newer window dressing and more opportunities to crash (at least from what I've heard from others - I never experienced Windows ME crashes but I never used it much anyhow).

Microsoft had something solid with NT and 2000 and they knew it. I, too, was one of the early adopters for Windows 2000, and used it in dual-boot with Windows 98 before it was later replaced by Windows XP. Truth be told, I rarely used Windows 98 - the network stack was shit and didn't allow for more than 40 or so connections (in my experience, anyway), which with the way I was using my computer I typically hit the limit pretty fast. Windows 2000 could shrug it off without an issue.

[leileilol]

FreeDOS + HX Extenders is the best you'll get. Otherwise you'll just have to cmd in windows whatever, or maybe just some kind of slim linux with dosemu loaded (yuck). The "advantage" of DOS back then was the direct hardware/memory access - which is a BIG NO-NO in a security conscious world and for Moore's Law. Also for reducing the memory footprint for the OS as memory was scant then and we have ridiculous amounts of ram these days it's hardly relevant anymore.


To be honest I don't want a modern DOS. I moved on from DOS 6.22 / WFW311 for good with no looking back starting from 1995 on. That's the only "new" Windows upgrade I did soon after release. Ever. The only time I installed DOS again were for emulators decades later.

---

ok, I admit i did also bite the WinME offer early X_X

[Graf Zahl]

The "advantage" of DOS back then was the direct hardware/memory access

You mean big disadvantage, right?

Now let's be serious. I can see what the OP really wants and that's not DOS. It's a modern OS with a command line interface. As an operating system DOS is so utterly stone age that "modernizing" it is a futile effort. You'd still be stuck with a system that basically has no functionality and needs to have all hardware support written as part of the app. The entire concept died 20+ years ago.

[leileilol]

I wasn't implying DOS was superior. It stopped being "better" when DirectX came out.

[Cacodemon345]

@Graf Zahl:
Trying to design a modern OS with a command-line system won't actually do much good, because times have changed ever since the GUI became the main way of operating a computer.