At 02:25 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in court),
> >
> > Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in
> > the first place...
>I don't know all the details, barely any actually.

So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\

>I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong.
>DOS was not just a glorified boot loader here, it was way more
>interwoven and a hard requirement for this particular OS. You really
>couldn't (AFAICT) run Win95 without DOS, at least without rewriting
>the whole thing. But that's beyond my understanding, so you'd have to
>ask someone more technically inclined (Geoff Chappell ??).

May I suggest a closer study of works like "Windows 95 Internals" by 
Michael Podanoffsky (out of print though according to Amazon, ) or 
any other in-depth document about Win32?

Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the 
"16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all 
necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two 
discrete entities...


Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to