Jerry J. Haumberger wrote:
> What I meant, though, is that if an *operating system* itself combined both
> CLI/GUI elements, it might get a little too complicated and create
> compatibility issues for third party software developers. What you've done
> with add-on programs yourself, of course, isn't altering DOS itself -- and
> *that*, I believe, is a more practical, flexible arrangement.
I completly agree. In my opinion, and OS should arrive with a simple
default user interface. Including a small and efficent file manager
will also be nice, so you'll have something additional when starting
with a freshly installed OS.
All the extra additions at the choice of the user should be added
later, externaly. This can also prevent the OS of being neccesarily
a bloatware, and will also allow the user a wider range of choices
as these extra additions can be made by third-parties.
> >There's also a not quite bad clone made for Windows 95, called
> >FAR. It also allow you to access FTP sites and do file-management on
> >them as if they were local directories. (I think this also apply
> >to midnight?)
>
> I haven't heard of "FAR". Have you tried "NewDeal"? Sounds similar to FAR,
> except that it isn't a clone of Win95, and it's supposed to run well on even
> a 286...
I wasnt talking about a clone OF Windows 95, I was talking about
a clone of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander FOR Windows 95. :)
What I like about it, is that like Norton and Midnight, it was
made to exploit all you can get from Windows's additional features.
(LFN, task list, internet connectivity and ETC'.)
Or Botton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
//@--------------------------
http://members.xoom.com/dsdp/
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
