On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, HCL BA wrote:
The version number is not important to me as FreeDOS has passed through some
milestones.
Being compatible to MSDOS 3.3 is good enough. Forget the Windows series,
List, Dbase 3, Lotus 123, Laplink and Wordstar just play well with 640K
memory.
I think
-Original Message-
From: Lyrical Nanoha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2006 08:44 AM
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Why 1.0 (was: Horrible Joke)
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, HCL BA wrote:
The version number is not important to me
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Imre Leber wrote:
(I said)
I've myself mentioned a couple times (years ago) my plan to take FreeDOS
in a new direction but it depends on me being able to use certain tools
that do not yet work for me. (i.e., anything using WatTCP/WatT32). If I
could get WatT32 working on
Hello,
This is a long overdue project. I do worry if I can stay alive to cheer the
official 1.0 version.
My 80186 laptop died last year, and my clock is ticking. I feel uneasy to
answer my nephew what I was doing with the computer all these years. Why it
take so long, and to show him what have
Jim Hall wrote:
[...]
It's as though we're afraid of the 1.0 label, sort of asymptotically
approaching 1.0 but never really getting there.
A lot of people probably wonder why is '1.0' so important? I feel we
need to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand, that we're at
least
