before you knew how to double click......

man, that was a long time ago

6/10/2009 8:15:29 AM

i knew her well

6/10/2009 8:15:56 AM

biblically, even

6/10/2009 8:16:15 AM

yes, she obeyed my commands

6/10/2009 8:17:42 AM

undelete c:\windows\system\*.* /all

6/10/2009 8:21:33 AM

FORMAT C:

6/10/2009 8:25:15 AM

OMG CD C:
DIR

6/10/2009 8:28:58 AM

wtf? the mouse, windows, and video teleconferencing were all around in 1968.

6/10/2009 8:44:13 AM

6/10/2009 8:44:15 AM

I know all about some DOS


who the fuck want what

6/10/2009 8:51:29 AM

yes. I still use it with Dosbox on the occasional

6/10/2009 8:54:33 AM

i know me some DOS

6/10/2009 8:54:55 AM

Gimme that dir/o/p bitchz

6/10/2009 8:57:04 AM

indeed, sir.

it was a requirement to know something about DOS way back when

6/10/2009 8:57:27 AM

Quote :

"I know all about some DOS"

6/10/2009 9:02:55 AM

Quote :

"I know all about some DOS"

6/10/2009 9:31:50 AM

Heck yeah. I was using DOS at 4 years old to launch my video games. Reader Rabbit ftw.

6/10/2009 9:39:35 AM

cd..

6/10/2009 9:49:11 AM

copy con autoexec.bat
echo "Hello"
autoexec.bat
[ctrl break]

6/10/2009 9:51:45 AM

dir /w haha, for long file folders

Quote :

"Reader Rabbit ftw."

very much FTW!! Midnight Rescue also!

6/10/2009 9:52:08 AM

i too had the reader rabbit.

cd ..

6/10/2009 9:54:16 AM

I had wheel of fortune on my DOS and this game where you go up a mountain

6/10/2009 9:55:08 AM

we had one called treehouse.









dosshell

6/10/2009 9:56:53 AM

Faggots. I remember CP/M DOS

6/10/2009 9:58:07 AM

I can still spit some DOS

6/11/2009 4:46:53 AM

6/11/2009 6:27:11 AM

oh yeah

6/11/2009 6:31:13 AM

10 print "cockballs"
20 goto 10
run

6/11/2009 7:18:53 AM

fuck DOS

I got dat Norton Commander sheeeiittt

6/11/2009 7:33:24 AM

yeah i used to love some norton commander

6/11/2009 7:42:07 AM

Quote :

"and this game where you go up a mountain"

Treasure Mountain

6/11/2009 8:29:13 AM

^lol

6/11/2009 8:29:46 AM

i had some dealing with ms dos...not for too long though

6/11/2009 8:32:34 AM

6/11/2009 8:36:03 AM

Quote :

"a better DOS than DOS"

6/11/2009 8:46:19 AM

i feel old now

6/11/2009 8:48:06 AM

I love me some Norton Commander! I used to think it was a game when i was little, like wing commander, only with a blue screen. It was fun to play with, but only in a different way.

I still use NC today sometimes.

6/11/2009 9:26:18 AM

i use norton commander today (far on windows and mc on *nix)
I write more for dos than anything these days (yay legacy compatibility)

6/11/2009 9:42:09 AM

post

6/11/2009 10:48:36 AM

post

6/11/2009 11:08:19 AM

lol dos was awesome, and so were dos games.. i wish i could go back to those simple times

6/11/2009 11:19:11 AM

post

6/11/2009 12:41:36 PM

Apple DOS, lol

6/11/2009 12:53:55 PM

fudge it



Bargames ftw

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : a]

6/11/2009 1:24:31 PM

I was somewhat familiar with it. Enough to run and install all my programs and do some limited troubleshooting.

Fuckin' A, that would've been when I was...10? Shit.

6/11/2009 1:30:51 PM

ha HA! http://blog.bitquabit.com/2009/06/12/zombie-operating-systems-and-aspnet-mvc/

Quote :

" In 1973, an operating system called CP/M was born. CP/M had no directories, and filenames were limited to 8.3 format. To support input and output from user programs, the pseudofiles COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, CON, AUX, PRN, and NUL were provided. In 1980, Seattle Computer Products decided to make a cheap, approximate clone of CP/M, called 86-DOS. 86-DOS therefore had no directories, supported 8.3 file names, and included the pseudofiles COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, CON, AUX, PRN, and NUL. Further, because many programs always saved their files with a specific extension, any file with these names and an extension was treated as identical to the filename without the extension. In 1981, Microsoft Corporation purchased the rights to use 86-DOS, renamed it MS-DOS, and shipped it to customers. In 1983, Microsoft Corporation released MS-DOS 2.0. MS-DOS 2.0 supported hierarchical directories. To maintain backwards compatibility with applications designed for MS-DOS 1.0, which had no concept of directories, Microsoft placed the pseudofiles COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, CON, AUX, PRN, and NUL, with all possible extensions, in all directories. In 1988, Microsoft began the development of a modern, preemptively multitasked, memory-protected, multiuser system loosely based on VMS, called Windows NT. Windows NT supported a completely new file system design, called NTFS, modeled on OS/2’s HPFS, which allowed for arbitrary file names in Unicode UCS-2. To maintain backwards compatibility with DOS applications running under the new operating system, some of which were written before DOS had hierarchical directories, Windows NT placed the pseudofiles COM1-9, LPT1-9, CON, AUX, PRN, and NUL, with all possible extensions, in all directories. Windows NT shipped to customers in 1993. In 1998, Microsoft released the Option Pack to the two-year-old Windows NT 4.0, containing a new technology called Active Server Pages, or ASP. ASP allowed the creation of dynamic websites via COM scripting. Because ASP was file-based, URLs by definition could not include /com1-9.asp, /lpt1-9.asp, /con.asp, /aux.asp, /prn.asp, or /nul.asp. In 2002, Microsoft announced the imminent release of the .NET framework. One component of .NET was ASP.NET, a vast improvement over ASP. Although ASP.NET provided vastly superior ways to write web pages than those provided by ASP, the mechanism was still completely based on per-file web pages—and although this mechanism could be overridden by various means, for backwards compatibility reasons, ASP.NET always checked for the existence of a file first before attempting to execute a custom handler. Thus, web pages could not contain /com[1-9](\..*)?, /lpt[1-9](\..*)?, /con(\..*)?, /aux(\..*)?, /prn(\..*)?, or /nul(\..*)?. In 2009, Microsoft released ASP.NET MVC, a thoroughly modern, orthogonal web framework supporting the most up-to-date understanding of how to architect well-factored, scalable web applications. ASP.NET MVC broke free of the per-file emphasis of previous frameworks, instead emphasizing regex-based URL dispatching, similar to popular scripting frameworks such as Django, Rails, and Catalyst. These URLs did not map to files; they instead mapped to objects that were designed to handle the request. Thus, URLs could be built entirely on what made logical sense, rather than on the confines of what the file system dictated. But ASP.NET MVC was based on ASP.NET. Which checks for the existence of a file before running any scripts. Which means it will check directories that have COM1-9, LPT1-9, CON, AUX, PRN, and NUL in them, with any extension. And that is why, in 2009, when developing in Microsoft .NET 3.5 for ASP.NET MVC 1.0 on a Windows 7 system, you cannot include /com\d(\..*)?, /lpt\d(\..*)?, /con(\..*)?, /aux(\..*)?, /prn(\..*)?, or /nul(\..*)? in any of your routes. "

6/12/2009 9:11:21 PM

I did some of my best work in dos.

6/12/2009 9:15:00 PM

oh man, our 3rd computer was a dual boot win95/os2 warp. All the good games were in os2 so I thought it was the heat. Correction, it was the heat.

6/12/2009 10:19:18 PM

Not only do I know dos, but I can count all the way to 20 senior.

6/12/2009 10:21:38 PM

dir /w/p

6/13/2009 4:19:23 AM