Hello Glenn:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:53:47 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
<snipped all>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:20:57 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
<snipped all>
Of course I already know about all the features described in your post
about the version of DOS that comes included with WIN95. My question
concerns whether this is "real DOS" or just a version of it having strains
of something else besides. I don't think a discussion of this nature is
going to result in a positive outcome. As I stated previously, it is like
arguing over the concept of a pure race. It makes no sense. Saying that
DOS is just a kernel is like saying that a member of a race may be defined
simply by a singular exclusive gene.
I have read somewhere that if you try to install an alternative version of
DOS, such as Caldera DR-DOS, to work with Windows 95, you will get an error
message from Windows 95 saying that your DOS version isn't compatible with
Windows 95. If Windows 95 runs on top of "pure DOS", then why should it
matter? I do know that Windows 3.1 isn't persnickity about what version of
DOS you are running, but Windows 95 wants only its own version. Even
though it will permit you to boot to a previous version of DOS, I believe
you must have it's own version installed too. Am I correct on this point?
Regards,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for DOS
-- Visit the Arachne DOS Browser Home Page, http://home.arachne.cz
