Hi
09 Jan 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ?? what does 'does not behave very well mean ??
SH> Good question. The answer depends on the criteria under which a thing
SH> or a person is being evaluated.
IMHO the criteria for a OS are that it runs the software without problems,
and has also no other problems.
SH> Some would say that a soldier is "well-behaved" if he conducts
SH> himself according to the way he has been trained, but what if he were
SH> trained to do things that are wrong?
interesting ... but not related to DOS ;)))
SH> Some would say that a device or a machine or a software product is
SH> "well-behaved" if it functions according to the way it is engineered
SH> and designed,
no ... a software is well behaved, if it has no problems, when you work
with it, and if you can do everything you want with it without error.
SH> Here are just some of the things I don't like about WIN95 DOS:
SH> It has too large a footprint and too great an appetite for memory.
??? in win98 DOS I have 623KB free ... this is enough for me ...
and it can move more to UMB than normal DOS
(buffershigh, fileshigh ....)
SH> For this reason there are many DOS apps that simply will not run
SH> under WIN95 DOS.
??? an app that does not run with 623 KB of mem IS crap
SH> Compare COMMAND.COM for WIN95 DOS: 93,812 bytes, as
SH> opposed to COMMAND.COM for DR-DOS 7.02: 66,657 bytes.
DOS is the kernel :))
You are free to use another command interpreter .... like I do ;)
SH> The COPY command under WIN95 DOS will not overwrite by default. You
SH> have to either respond to a prompt or use a parameter to suppress the
SH> prompt. This is a hassle, IMNSHO.
this is not DOS ... DOS is the kernel ...
SH> WIN95 DOS lacks some necessary utilities, such as the UNDELETE
SH> command.
this is not DOS ;)
For me the main feature is a stable kernel ... and I never had any problems
with M$-DOS 6 or higher ...
I had problems with novell/drdos
SH> Upon booting, WIN95 DOS loads a GUI by default.
this is no bug, but a feature ;)))
This gives you the ability to run win32 and win16 programs ;)
SH> You have to either respond to some prompts or resort to a hassle and
SH> read some manuals in order to figure out how to fix this behavior.
SH> This is a very poor design feature, IMNSHO.
no ... you buy win9x, and get win9x
DOS is just an additional thing ...
SH> Whether to automatically load a GUI upon booting is something that
SH> ought to be called or commented out in AUTOEXEC.BAT, as it is in the
SH> normal versions of Windows (3.x). I don't know why the developers of
SH> WIN95 wanted to complicate the booting procedure.
no ... exactly the other way round ... they want dummy usability.
Imagine the new computer user buying a AMD duron 700 with 128 MB ram, he
starts his computer and there is a C:\>_ he will bring it back, and claim,
that his computer is broken.
Imagine the poweruser who bought a new computer ...
Athlon 1 GHz, 256 MB RAM, 50 GB HDD ...
he will not use DOS, and therefor be limited to a single task !
(OK ... he will also not run Win ... because he hates rebooting, so DOS/Win
will be deleted, and some unixish OS will be installed)
Conclusio:
99% of the people buying a new computer do NOT want/need DOS ...
so M$ doesn't advertise it.
In reality it's the other way round ...
aehh this is still the old DOS windows 4 based stuff sick ... I hate dos.
So that's the reason why Windows millenium hides DOS even better.
>> I'm using the DOSes from both versions, and have not noticed any bad
>> behaviour in years.
SH> Your criteria for evaluating behavior in this case is based upon
SH> whether you think the DOSes are performing as engineered and
SH> designed.
no
For me it runs every DOS program I have tried without any problems ...
I don't care what it was designed for, as long as it does what I want it to
do without any problems.
>> SH> Given a machine with Windows 95 installed on a hard drive having
>> SH> a FAT 16 partition, and the partition's size not being too big
>> SH> to be recognized by your favorite DOS version,
>> if it is fat16, than the partition size can't be too big ...
>> win95/98 IS dos, so there can't be a partition size which windows
>> 'understands' and dos not.
SH> If you have WIN95 installed on a 100 MB partition on your C: drive,
SH> and you boot to a floppy being a DOS 3.30 system disk, then your DOS
SH> will not recognize the C: drive because DOS 3.30 cannot recognize a
SH> partition greater than 32 MB
and if you boot from a CP/M disk it will not recognize the partition either
.... <SCNR>
SH> All the best,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421}
|~\|(__\| -=> Rainy days and automatic weapons get me down... <=-
