http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

Windows NT can run MS-DOS programs through the use of the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine), and the 16-bit command.com interpreter from MS-DOS 5.0 is still included to maintain application compatibility with programs that expect it...Recent versions of NT for x64 architectures, including Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows Server 2003 x64 and Windows Vista x64, no longer include the NTVDM and can therefore no longer natively run MS-DOS (or 16-bit Windows) applications.

I could get Vista for free from MSDNAA but I'm afraid that it would mess up my GRUB configuration and I wouldn't be able to play Oblivion well. It barely runs as it is on XP, and some massive bloat like Vista would make the framerate drop from 15-30 to 1 or 0.

Oh I assure you, it isn't imitation, it's the Real Thing TM.
[sarcasm]You gotta love those *BSD guys. They help improve proprietary (closed source) Operating Systems more everyday.[/sarcasm]

Anyway, I suggest buying a box with Linux preinstalled. If you just want something cheap, you can order right off www.walmart.com

@Sepero: They copied UNIX's way to handle DLLs. BSD in all its flavours, and possibly Solaris, are the last living decendants of UNIX.

I'm not a fan of Walmart when it comes to computers.

Most walmart electronic systems have been opened and are defective, requiring an immediate return. I experienced this with my Xbox AND a PC from there. They just throw garbage into a cardboard box, put it on the shelf, put a new price tag on it, without even thinking about it. I try not to shop there at all anymore.

With that being said, Ubuntu is running very well on my Compaq SR1803WM (from walmart)--it found all the hardware, including the wireless card. Suse Linux 10.1 couldn't get much of it right without downloading drivers.

You can buy the parts separated and build yourself. There is nothing hard in doing that. It is pretty much like playing with Lego. Some stores can help you out choosing the right hardware as well.

I've build several computers myself. Some for private use and some at my work and I personally did not see any advantages in doing so. For example, my "best" computer at home is a Dell with a Dual-core processor. It would cost me waaay more to buy all the stuff separated. Only the processor costs a lot. However, I have two problems:

- Only enough space for two harddisks
- GFX card not very good for high-end games

Both things can be fixed. The graphics card I changed right away for a much better one. If I ever feel the need to have more than two harddisks, I can either use an external one or use the space bellow the DVD burner to place the disks.

All in all, I'm pretty sure it was a very good deal to buy a PC from Dell. And I got another original copy of winxp which I use a lot anyway...

And since we are at it, there is no native MS-DOS code on Windows XP, much less likely in Vista. If you try to run DOS applications in Windows XP, you will notice how bad they perform. In fact, in the case of games, it is nearly unplayable. That is a clear sign that ratter than using native MS-DOS code, Windows is emulating MS-DOS for backward compatibility only.

And to sum up, saying that Vista is not fast is quite relative. I personally think that WinXP is extremely fast in my machine. A guy running 300 megahertz P2 with 128 RAM would most likely say otherwise (and he is still in the winxp min sys requirements). Have you tried the final version of Vista? Maybe some things are actually faster, such as searching for files. I haven't tried it myself, so I can't say...

People think some funny things, mostly based on the fact that they'd feel more comfortable if they were true. I've spoken to people about windows xp home vs pro and I could not convince them that the only differences between home and pro are remote desktop, some crypto and nt domain support.
In every case they thought pro was faster and more secure.
make something more expensive or release a new version and people will believe that it is better, faster and more secure.

The hardware requirements for vista are, old, designed to sell more expensive computers or for the 64 bit version, as 64 bit processing generally needs more ram.
Old versions of Vista prior to the RTM release were full of debugging code, and as a result were very slow and memory hogs.
I've noticed that some retailers list the aero requirements as the Vista requirements, which is somewhat misleading.
I've heard that games run kind of slow and crash, because Microsoft really just had to have something screwed up miserably on a new release of Windows.

Vista is good for Windows people, they've finally redone the interface in a meaningful way, application development has been simplified because of how the new UI works. hopefully once they figure out the whole directx thing 3D rendering apps and games will be able to match XP performance or even improve. Vista finally has a new, written by Microsoft, TCP/IP stack, which could very well turn out to be a disaster, but for the sake of half the internet, let's hope it doesn't.

and for one final point, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, they came close in the mid 90s but never quite made it. microsoft certainly dominates this industry but get real.
Apple computers, are popular.
Linux is popular.
not much compared to Microsoft. but still there, and used by millions.
Microsoft's business practices over the years have been anything but clean and I haven't been happy with them for a VERY long time, but they do not have a monopoly.

Average PC has, or should have, 256MB-512MB of RAM. Vista needs 512MB of RAM to start, can be stripped to 256MB but it's an ugly experience. Not to mention the video cards, too. Vista need 1GB of RAM to operate at a decent level with Home Basic. I haven't seen anyone try Premium, Business, or Ultimate yet.

You have to remember, too, that PCs have a limit, at the moment, of 4 dual-core CPUs, and 16GB of RAM. Sure, at that level you'll notice little, but windows has been doubling in size for a while now. 2k was 96/128MB, XP was 256MB, Vista is 512MB. Most people have a max of 2/4GB, possibly 1 DIMM wasted on a 512MB stick. So yeah most people won't be able to run Vista as fast as possible. (To the point where you stop noticing)

And consider the fact that alot of XP users are using 256MB/512MB of RAM. Vista at 512MB is like XP at 256MB. Not nice.

@DaWallace: Yes, MS doesn't have a monopoly, and the numbers are slowly dropping, but the thing is owning 90% of the market, and having a good 70%/80% of those clueless drones can be considered monopolistic extremism, if such a word exists :P.

Apple computers aren't too hot. With around 5% of the PC market, possibly as low as 3%, Apple is only staying alive because of iTunes and iPods, though iPods are only around 27% of the global market. (Stats released officially by Apple are just for US.)

For those who think DOS is dead:

From a command prompt in Vista (or even XP), run the "mem" command. Pay close attention to the final line of output.

I might be wrong, because it's been a few days since I last cleaned my glasses, but I'm pretty sure it says:

"MS-DOS resident in High Memory Area"

Now tell me again about Vista's fresh code base and about how it isn't just another re-hashed, extended & patched version of DOS with a new set of icons...

Well that says about x64 architectures; but what about the regular, most common and distributed 32-bit windoze installs?
Why don't you reboot your machine to your windoze XP? And whenever it finishes booting, open a cmd and type mem. And tell me, what does it say it's running?

Edit: rkelsen posted the same idea a bit earlier

Yeah, the Vista (fever?) also just broke out here. Porblem is most people are unwilling or unable to upgrade their pc's (given portugal's sad economic situation), and not only will Vista be a ball-and-chain on their systems, but also the mere price for Home Basic is rediculous (can't even do something simple as burn a DVD).

And then there are the businesses.
I'll give where my mother works as an example: nearly all the computers are P3's and bellow, and are nothing more than work-hourses.
There is no bloody way that Vista will ever be able to increase productivity by running on those boxes, and management is also not upgrading any hardware....
Not to mention, you see local governments all over (mostly europe and asia) adopting open source sofware.

No matter what stores, trained monkeys and other idiots say, you can actually see the "apocalypse" unroll (for ms that is) and smell microsoft's fear.
Vista is defenitely the turning point. All I can wonder now is what crap they are going to cook up for Vistas successor (Windows Vienna) by 2020.

@easuter: until 2009 Microsoft is in good stance. Support for XP ends there, and there is the turning point. It's not now. And we could extend the support as we did with 2000 & 98, too.
Vienna on the other hand.. well.. don't get overconfident that we will make crappy OS then. It's pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary as in Enlightement + NeXTstep, that is.

@DaWallace: Most of the retailers are listing "Vista Premium Ready" requirements. Those are numbers Microsoft suggest, although Aero glass works with as little as 32Mb of GPU on integrated chipset leving only 480Mb of RAM for system. Tested with RTM version (both x64 & x86)

And generally, as for the claim that Vista is faster? Memory management and threading is much more efficient. Vista quite frankly is faster than XP on "Vista Ready" systems. Windows 95 would fly if it could use resources on modern computers but it doesn't. Or Linux (the kernel) from 1996 for that matter. But hey they donät because they can't utilize modern resources effectively.
Get over it.

LOL! I very much doubt that!
Give me some proof of that PLEASE!

Thats yet another myth.
I have an IBM ThinkPad 390X with a P3 450mhz and 128mb of ram. I've installed a light-weight distro on it (VectorLinux 5.8), and it is already fast considering the hardware.
But, I did something that no Windows user will ever be able to do: compiled my own custom kernel, cutting out all hardware I will never use, turning on optimizations for my processor, and making it very modular. The result: a small kernel image that uses little memory and loads modules only when necessary, but has support for all of todays modern hardware. Guess which version? 2.6.19.2! The newest (or one of the newest) arround. Boot time is under a minute, and total memory consumption is 22,5mb, with X, fluxbox, all the necessary drivers, and background services such as ifplugd, udev and dbus running in the background.(will post a screenshot to prove it if you doubt me).

Now shove that in your pipe and smoke it!

Ok. Irrational hatred towards Microsoft doesn't really justify acting like a redneck moran. LOL! PLEASE!!

Hmm, strangely I recall using Linux kernel from year 1996 as a comparing point to windows 95. Not the latest kernel. Take 1996 kernel and make it run effectively on dual-64-bit processors and 800mhz DDR2 RAM. Just as pointless as with Win95!
Happy hunting.

All I asked was for some proof of your statement (link, screenshots, etc). Does that make me a redneck moron?