On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:27:22 -0500
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>EDIT.COM has much better features than PICO, IMHO.
Tru, you'll hear no argument from me!
> The disadvantage of EDIT.COM is that it cannot function all by itself as a
"stand-alone", because it requires QBASIC in order to work.
However, win95 edit.com weighs in much less, and I have no Qbasic in my 95
system. Dos6.22 does have Qbasic, and does require it to run edit properly.
>My version of DOS 7.00 came provided with WIN95. Is it possible to load
>DOS 7.00 without installing some components of WIN95? I don't know about
>this.
I took another look in my /windows/command directory, and I reckon those
files & an autoexec.bat / config.sys, are enough to run a basic dos startup
with config tools eg xcopy, format, fdisk. I guess should be possible to rip
that directory, shove them on a floppy and run enough DOS to get started.
It is however missing many of the 'frills' that make dos more bearable,
though which bits those are eludes me right now :-) (Goes away & checks:)
perhaps EMM? Memmaker? Intersvr?
Many of which aren't needed in a win'32' environment, as those functions
reside elsewhere in the OS's bowels.
In a world without walls, who needs windows?
Visit my home site for more info:
http://www.fresh-toast.com/welcome.htm
