From:	"J. Yazel" <jyazel AT nls DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.4dos,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.desqview,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.msdos.mail-news
Subject:	Re: regarding dos 640kb barrier
Message-ID:	<m1cgivk9sqpu1fjvtkue4u8n2dfl5tifcf@4ax.com>
References:	<f88a27e4 DOT 0307300042 DOT 5b60b7fe AT posting DOT google DOT com>
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.93/16.576 English (American)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Lines:	26
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT usenetserver DOT com
X-Abuse-Info:	Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info:	Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:43:26 EDT
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:54:43 -0400
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On 30 Jul 2003 01:42:24 -0700, ypjofficial AT indiatimes DOT com (yogesh)
wrote:

>hi all!!
>i have one question whose convincing answer i couldn' find in any
>book.
>everybody knows that dos has 640kb barrier..and hence this makes dos
>inefficient...
>my question is if dos is such a weak operating system..then why
>somebody like microsoft(creater of ms dos)didn't redesigned dos so
>that there could be no 640 kb memory limit...why they chose to develop
>memory managers like himem and extended memory manager etc....
>why microsft waited for winnt to eradicate dos...??? why ms didn't do
>it before...
>hope i am clear in conveying my question...
>regds,
>yogesh
  ===============================

  They did redesign Dos.

  They removed the 640 limit, added a few "goodies" and
changed the name to Windows.

     Jack

- Raw text -