Hi
11 Jan 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> WIN95 DOS behaves the way the developers have taught it to behave,
SH> but it does things that are wrong.
I still don't get the point.
I don't care what it was made to behave, as long as I can get it to behave
as _I_ want it to behave.
I have found not a single incompatibility in it.
I have not faced any drawbacks,
and it gives me the ability to run win95 or win98, while I see no drawbacks
...
The only thing I can imagine is, that it is set up to boot windows.
But remember you don't bought dos 7.10, but windows 98.
So this is IMHO legitimate ...
I see it like that I bought win98, and got DOS 7.10 for free ;))))
(PS: I bought it from M$ for 65 ATS which is hmmm ... ca. 9 am. $
it was a special offer for students of the technical university of vienna
:) M$ was seeing that TU students very much focus on Linux and some on BSD
or NeXtStep.
PPS: Win2k costs 90 ATS which is ca. 12 $ ;))))
PPPS: They were not able to stop linux on the tu !!
>> SH> It has too large a footprint and too great an appetite for
>> SH> 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> Thanks for that info. I didn't know about buffershigh and fileshigh.
SH> I'll have to try it.
IMHO it is done automatically, and you can switch it off, with
DOS=NOAUTO
(auto loads setver, files/buffers/FCBS HIGH, loads IFSHLP needed for
windows cache/network)
Naturally you can say fileshigh and it will load high.
>> 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> Have you tried PC-PINE? A really nice program, except for its
SH> voracious appetite for DOS memory.
yes ... worked
PS: I prefer to SSH into my linux gateway, and use pine there ;)
So I'm eg able to do this, which will be a bit hard for DOS:
wget -c ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/linux/redhat &
starts wget in the background and mirrors the dir from the TU goodie server
to my local HDD, than I can read mail in pine, and download stuff in the
background.
Or I can use multiple programs in one telnet/ssh session, using the screen
program ...
>> 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> Isn't the DOS version determined by the version of COMMAND.COM in
SH> use? Maybe you've got me on that one. I don't know.
no ... DOS (like Linux) is the kernel !
It's the kernel that has to be stable, to get a stable system.
(And M$ DOS kernels I tried WERE stable)
Command.com is only the interface to the dos kernel.
You can use any other program (specified in the shell command of config.sys
instead of it)
YOu could either use the extremely powerful 4dos (older versions were also
marketed as norton NDOS), or BASH.
Yes ... there's also a bash port from Unix to DOS ;)
>> SH> The COPY command under WIN95 DOS will not overwrite by default.
>> SH> You have to either respond to a prompt or use a parameter to
>> SH> suppress the prompt. This is a hassle, IMNSHO.
>> this is not DOS ... DOS is the kernel ...
SH> I am lost at this point. Isn't the kernel the component that loads
SH> the internal commands?
no the kernel has a set of functions.
the command interpreter has built in commands.
If you use the DOS bash port, you can eg make ls and get a dir. listing.
or you could type df and get the amount of disk free.
you can try 4dos (shareware) at http://www.jpsoft.com
>> SH> WIN95 DOS lacks some necessary utilities, such as the UNDELETE
>> SH> command.
>> this is not DOS ;)
SH> OK, so it is not DOS, but it is a DOS utility that *should* have been
SH> included, as it is in all other relatively recent DOS versions I have
SH> worked with.
ok ... don't forget ... they market it as win98 ... so it is no dos
release. (but as Bernie already told you ... it is also delivered ...
there is a dir on the disk, where old and 'obsolete' DOS stuff is stored.
For me personally it is no loss, because I seldom use M$ utilities, there
are much better 3. party utilities.
The only thing I want is a M$ compatible, and stable DOS kernel.
And M$ DOS kernel is stable, M$ compatible, and newer versions even give me
the ability to use more than 1 GB of HDD space without HUGE clusters.
(and actually give me the ability to have larger partitions than 2 GB)
>> 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 mean to say that a win32 program would not otherwise be able to
SH> run unless DOS were to boot a GUI by default?
no ... I mean that DOS alone is not able to run win16/32 programs ...
(Linux is able to do so partly ... WINE rules ;))
SH> I cannot understand why this should be so.
it is not so ...
But what advantage does M$ have with not booting into GUI ??
1) newbies are completely lost without a GUI.
2) powerusers like not having GUIs, but powerusers like also to run more
than 1 program concurently, to share an internet connection with many
programs, ....
So if they shipped windows with bootgui=0 they would even faster loos
costumers to linux and other alternatives.
>> SH> You have to either respond to some prompts or resort to a hassle
>> SH> and read some manuals in order to figure out how to fix this
>> SH> behavior. This is a very poor design feature, IMNSHO.
>> no ... you buy win9x, and get win9x
>> DOS is just an additional thing ...
SH> DOS is not just an additional thing. DOS is required in order to run
SH> Windows.
yes ... I know ...
it was meant in another sense ...
win is advertised, as a needed OS to run win programs, and you get the
ability to run DOS programns, and boot into DOS additionally.
SH> So much for now,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421}
|~\|(__\| -=> At least you can always use my code as a bad example <=-
