Mail Archives: opendos/1997/07/14/02:11:37
Two slightly similar messages...
> What could there possibly be to gain from running win95 from
> Opendos instead of whatever version of DOS MS using to load
> '95? I'm missing the point here somewhere - if there is one.
I'm not sure if the aim was to run win95 from the Opendos command
prompt or to get the OpenDOS version of command.com when you need a DOS
window within Win95. Either way could be useful to some people (I
particulary like the option of using bits of OpenDOS and 4DOS and
FreeDOS to upgrade Win95 to something a little more useful). The
OpenDOS command.com has little features that I really cannot live
without any more, although no one of them is exactly crucial to me.
> I think the attempt to attain simple "WIN95 compatibility" for OpenDOS is
> a wrong way because of:
Novell DOS had sat idle for a long time, eroding the lead the operating
system had over MS, so there are features that many people *expect* a
DOS to have that had to be added pretty darned quick. This hasn't
meant OpenDOS moving into the bloated software class - it retains the
good features of DOS, including the ability to run on miserly
hardware. And I expect that implementing features like long filenames
the buggy MS way is only part of a short-term emergency operation;
better things are likely in OpenDOS later. It is open enough to not at
all depend on what Caldera choose to do with it. There are some things
OpenDOS *needs* to have simply to be thought of as a viable, modern
operating system, even if you and I don't need to use such features
ourselves.
Being able to read/write diskettes with long filenames is important;
greater compatibility with Win95 (so you can use the OpenDOS version of
command.com) is nice for me, but I expect is only a side-effect of the
foundation work needed to allow better things to be built on OpenDOS.
> 1) Nobody can buy WINDOWS 4 without M$-DOS 7;
But people buy add-ons for Windows to make it work better. Many home
users with children who access their computer would like security as
much as business users; there are better facilities in some commands
(e.g. FC, TYPE); and some people would like to be able to boot into DOS
mode to get the maximum RAM possible (and OpenDOS beats MSDOS 7 there).
> 2) The best features of OpenDOS (TASKMGR, UNDELETE) are useless in WINDOWS..
True. Undelete *could* be made to work. But we're still talking about
old utilities; I guess Caldera want to get even better apps out for
OpenDOS, and 3rd-party developers would like a platform which isn't
likely to be changed at Bill's whim. To be able to build such apps onto
the OpenDOS platform it first needs to be modernised.
> 3) This way cannot solve the main problem of the present-day...[bloatware]..
I think OpenDOS isn't going the bloatware way. I must admit, it was
one of my early fears, but look at LONGNAME.EXE - it takes 13kB of RAM,
runs on ye olde and ancient PC's, etc. I'm happy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Aitchison, Physics & Astronomy \_ Phone : +64 3 3642-947 a.h. 3371-225
University of Canterbury, </ Fax : +64 3 3642-469 or 3642-999
Christchurch, New Zealand. /) E-mail: phys169 AT csc DOT canterbury DOT ac DOT nz
#include <disclaimer.std> (/' Callsign: ZL3TQE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Raw text -