Comments:	Authenticated sender is <alaric+abwillms AT sdps DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
From:	"Alaric B. Williams" <alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
To:	pgiffuni AT fps DOT biblos DOT unal DOT edu DOT co
Date:	Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:12:58 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: The compiling tools
Reply-to:	alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
CC:	opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
References:	<860099513 DOT 0626236 DOT 0 AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.A41.3.95.970403165525.41384A-100000@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Message-ID:	<860519408.1117661.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>

On  3 Apr 97 at 17:14, pgiffuni AT fps DOT biblos DOT unal DOT edu. wrote:

> OK, I see it this way: M$ says they don't care about DOS, but they
> actually use it in their stinking W95. Their users follow Windows 95
> blindly, so I guess you're right and we must enable the features in M$-DOS
> so there is no risk of going incompatable and OD continues being
> attractive.

Right. For example, LFNs. If we have an LFN TSR that provides the
standard win95ish LFN API in real mode (and something nicer
of our own devising in protmode), that will also provide access
to ext2 and so on, then that's all fine and dandy and portable.

You can use it on DOS5.0 - but if you went and got OpenDOS, you'd
have a shell that showed LFNs in DIR commands! The Windows 95 
DOS commands can't do this, since they go through their own LFN API
which doesn't do ext2 and all that.

How nice...


ABW
--
Alaric B. Williams (alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk)

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/

- Raw text -