This discussion about how Windows works has moved well beyond the 
original thread that involved FreeDOS.  Can you guys take this thread 
off-list?  Just trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio fairly high here.


Gerry Hickman wrote:
> Hi Arkady,
>> GH> Are you claiming they're identical or not?
>>      This is _one program_! Or you wish to say, that FreeDOS 2035 isn't
>> FreeDOS, because kernel.sys binary-non-identical to FreeDOS 2034?
> OK, but I don't agree with your conclusion here. As you point out, 
> different Kernel versions could easily introduce new functionality (e.g. 
> FAT32).
> All I was saying was that DOS 6.22 startup files are different to WfW 
> 3.11 startup files. The exact differences may never be known due to 
> Microsoft's failure to embrace open-source. There is also the issue of 
> DOS 6.0 vs DOS 6.22; the update was only related to stacker/doublespace 
> changes, so how do we know the WfW 3.11 startup files don't contain 
> newer functionality than those of DOS 6.22 even if it was released 
> after? Have you looked at HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP.SYS in detail for 
> example?
>> GH> To me, a DOS shell would
>> GH> be something that talks to the hardware via DOS,
>>      DOS doesn't talks to hardware, DOS talks with BIOS.
> Right! Eric pointed that out too off-list. Sorry for bad wording, but 
> I'm sure everyone knew what I meant:)
> Actually, this is even more interesting! Isn't it the case that some 
> Windows code can bypass the BIOS completely? If so, then what I said 
> makes some sense...

I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him.

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to