Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> My question concerns whether this is "real DOS" or just a version of
SH> it having strains of something else besides.
real :)
SH> I have read somewhere that if you try to install an alternative
SH> version of DOS, such as Caldera DR-DOS, to work with Windows 95, you
SH> will get an error message from Windows 95 saying that your DOS version
SH> isn't compatible with Windows 95.
Correct.
Win95 loads only with M$ DOS.
It looks if the DOS manufacturer is M$ if not it prints an error.
It wants a DOS with a special extension for long filenames.
LFN support is a new feature to DOS. (but it only works if Windows provides
its LFN API)
Win98 also needs FAT32 support. (Lineo was working on this as well, before
they abandoned DrDOS ... I hope that they release the sourcecode for
their DOS !!! )
So DOS 7 is as pure as dos 3.3.
(or was DOS 4 less pure than 3.3 because it provided support for partitions
>32MB ??)
SH> If Windows 95 runs on top of "pure DOS", then why should it matter?
Because M$ says that Win95 is a OS for itself.
If it would run on another DOS, this would foolish :)
SH> I do know that Windows 3.1 isn't persnickity about what version of
SH> DOS you are running, but Windows 95 wants only its own version. Even
SH> though it will permit you to boot to a previous version of DOS, I
SH> believe you must have it's own version installed too.
Yes ... but both of your facts has nothing to do with purity.
It has to do with marketing, and M$ want to sell THEIR products.
(IMHO Digital Research sued M$, because they built in a 'feature' into Win3
beta, which said: 'Your version of DOS is not suitable for Windows, it will
produce instabilities, please upgrade to MS-DOS'
this says it all)
SH> Regards,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> When you can't make it GOOD, make it BIG! <=-
