Mail Archives: opendos/1997/07/13/08:31:53
nuqneH,
> Organization: Inst. of Evolutionary Physiology & Biochemistry,
> St.Petersburg
> From: pavel AT insect DOT ief DOT spb DOT su (Pavel Ozerski)
> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 97 11:57:03 +0300
> Subject: about current attempts to make OpenDOS WIN'95 compatible
[dd]
> I think, the attempt to attain simple "WIN95 compatibility" for OpenDOS is
> a wrong way because of:
> 1) Nobody can buy WINDOWS 4 without M$-DOS 7;
Yep. But COD is a good replacement for M$-DOS 7 and it would be nice to use
it without rebooting the system and all that nasty boot managers.
> 2) The best features of OpenDOS (TASKMGR, UNDELETE) are useless in WINDOWS
> environment, therefore using OpenDOS SIMPLELY instead MS is useless
Oh no. No. NO NO NOOOOO!!!!! NOT AGAAAAAAAIN!!!!!!!!
You named _that_.. poor man's desqview that's olny advantage (being compared
with desqview itself) is that it is free.
First,can you spell "Concurrent DOS"? Why isn't it out here? And so many people
answered: what? what is Concurrent DOS? Multitasking? Yep,we have tasmgr.
SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT!!!!!
Second.. it's better for Caldera to buy dv and dv/x from Quarterdeck who
nearly abandoned those products and to forget taskmger as a bad dream.
> (an answer: will do future OpenDOS UNDELETE preserve full LONG names of
> deleted files too?);
I hope so.
> Finally, 3) This way cannot solve the main problem of the present-day
> tendency of OSs development: permanent increase of the hardware requirement.
Bad tendency and.. i don't see it at all. Hardware requirements for DOS,Linux
and FreeBSD have not change much for last 2 years. I can't tell the same about
M$ "operating systems". I think it is the m$ problem,not the present-day
tendency. At least it is not so clear as hardware manufacturers and m$ want
it to be.
---
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_
CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|
- Raw text -