Message-ID:	<00d501bc5329$08bd00a0$70f8c6c3@johans-dator>
From:	"Johan Henriksson" <johan DOT he AT telia DOT com>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: FreeDOS (was: Re: DJGPP: the future is... ?)
Date:	Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:30:16 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

from Johan Henriksson, Sweden    HTTP://come.to/jhewok  |
Primary mail: johan DOT he AT telia DOT com                  #UIN 12035895
Second: jhe75 AT hotmail DOT com    Third: johan_he AT yahoo DOT com
Leadprogrammer and FX-specialist at Real software
http://come.to/real_software
*************************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Barker <sokal AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: FreeDOS (was: Re: DJGPP: the future is... ?)


>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 walt121 AT my-dejanews DOT com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> Windows 2000,
>> according to the magazines, will not have DOS capability.  Therefore,
unless
>> DJGPP evolves to work under Windows 2000, it is dead.
>[snip]

Don't think so. If w2k will be totally dependant (even kicking... oops!
sorry DJ), then I'm only waiting for a major boycot of Windoze. No _real_
user wants a system that crashes about 3 times a day and have to be
reinstalled once a week. At least this house will soon be totally clean from
M$-crap. (Unless for one machine for testing my future Windows-deleting
viruses ;)

>
>But not immediately. In the UK academic environment (which is the one I
>know about), Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.11 are still heavily used. There is
>a healthy "if it ain't too bust, don't fix it" attitude, and hardware
>dating from the time of Windows 3.1 still tends to run Windows 3.1.
>
>With what seems to be a recent increase in home ownership of PCs, some
>students are surprised at the obsolete hardware running this obsolete
>system. But, once we have wasted time explaining 8.3 file names and why
>you should "switch to" rather than (Mac-like) repeatedly double-click the
>Excel icon, they can still do their work.(*) Among staff, if Windows 3.1
>is familiar, a move to Win32 will waste at least some time. Excel and Word
>are still Excel and Word, and few of the differences between the last 3
>versions seem important for most purposes.
>
>The millenium might present problems. However, the following solutions
>will be widely applied:
>
>(1) move the computer system clock back so it never hits the millenium;
>
>(2) use (perhaps unofficial) patches or replacements for components that
>fail.
>
>Both (1) and (2) have problems. For example, (1) could cause outgoing
>e-mails to have the wrong date on. But that can be avoided by running Pine
>(via telnet) on an up-to-date central Unix service. This is very possible,
>and indeed happens, at many universities.
>
>If either or both of these approaches works in practice, Windows 3.1 and
>Windows 3.11 systems will be with us in significant numbers for at least
>several years. "Several" is vague, I know. My guess is about 6 years.
>("Significant" is also a vague term ... Every such system will be
>significant to its user.)
>
>
>(*) Another serious problem I have noticed is in trying to save copies of
>a file to several floppy disks, e.g., when several students are
>collaborating on some work. For no good reason that I can think of, this
>remains difficult and fraught with danger when using Microsoft Office,
>whether under Windows 3.1 or Windows NT.
>
>
>Daniel Barker.
>
>

- Raw text -