Vince Teachout wrote: > I had forgotten the details. Thank goodness for Wiki: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS > > ------------------ From the above article ----------------------------- > > > Aggressive competition by Microsoft > > Faced with substantial competition in the DOS arena, Microsoft > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft> responded strongly. They > announced the development of MS-DOS 5.0 in May 1990, to be released a > few months later and include similar advanced features to those of > DR-DOS. This has been seen as vaporware > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>, as MS-DOS 5.0 was released > June 1991. It included matches of the DR's enhancements in memory > management, but did not offer all of the improvements to the syntax of > DOS commands that DR did. > > ....... <A few paragraphs cut> > > Though DR-DOS was apparently 100% binary compatible with applications > written for MS-DOS, Microsoft nevertheless expended considerable effort > in attempts to break compatibility. In one example, they inserted code > into Windows 3.1 to return a non-fatal error message if it detected a > non-Microsoft DOS. With the detection code disabled (or if the user > canceled the error message), Windows ran perfectly under DR-DOS and its > successor Novell DOS. Vince
Funnily enough I only have to turn my head to spot two books - "Using Novell DOS 7" and "Novell DOS 7 Unleashed" ! Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
