COMPILE?
No. Write.
This would not be a "recompile" of an existing
shell. This would be new code. It would, in
effect, be a replacement for CMD.EXE that ships
with Win NT.
Yes, almost surely a substantial amount of the
code would be borrowed from some other shell
or DOS emulator product.
Simple? No. Easy? No. Troublesome? Yes.
Marketable? I'd certainly buy one.
I wasn't thinking of a weekend basement
project, I was thinking of a commercial
quality DOS replacement that "boots" as
a window (read: virtual box).
But, at the risk of repeating myself,
this is only required if you feel you
need to have Windoughs running.
Regards,
Garry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------
> Ben A L Jemmett wrote:
>
> > Such a shell would, of course, be coded to be
> > portable to OTHER high-performance 32-bit OS
> > environments (like BeOS, *nix, your-brand-here).
> You mean Windoze is a high-performance environment? Cool.
>
> However, if memory serves, a lot of Windows apps use the INT21h services
> for disk I/O, so to some extent Windows needs DOS support. To recompile a
> shell like COMMAND or 4DOS (bash?) to a Win32 app should be relatively...
> difficult knowing MS. Oh well.
>
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.
