Mail Archives: opendos/2000/01/26/17:59:59
Bruce wrote:
>Sorry, you're logic here
>eludes me. Are you implying
>that the "bugfix" is to a
>DOS component and not some
>part of the GUI?
To be able to even run the bug fix I need to start in "Normal MS-DOS mode"
and then run win.com
>Your hardware doesn't seem
>to support enough IRQ
>alternatives, can't blame
>that on Windoze. It have a
>similarly crowded card
>collection -- NIC, modem,
>two active serial ports,
>IRQ/DMA-hungry sound card,
>SCSI controller, Sony
>proprietary CD-ROM interface
>-- with no conflicts at all.
But since I do NOT have any conflicts in DOS I CAN blaim Windows for this!
All of a sudden several IRQs are used fror various tasks - but neither the
BIOS nor DOS will see these components.
>Sure, but DOS isn't really
>an operating system, it's a
>sort of extended monitor
>with disk access -- warm-
>over CP/M with a few Unix-
>like enhancements. It has
>virtually no overhead
>because (outside of things
>like device drivers and
>memory managers) it's
>pretty much idle until its
>called on to do something.
And why is it then not an OS? This time your logic eludes me.
Besides, wasn't CP/M a UNIX clone?
Anyway I really doubt that an OS is a program that constantly keeps your
computer busy wheter you use it or not. None of the information I've read
has stated that DOS isn't an OS.
>Multitaskers like Windoze
>and UNIX are active all the
>time and are much more CPU-
>intensive -- of course they
>actually retain control of
>the hardware, whereas
>single-task, non-reentrant
>stuff like DOS pretty much
>steps aside and lets the
>app of the moment take
>control.
But why do anything when nothing is supposed to be done? IMHO that's very
useless, and I doubt anyone will disagree with me on that.
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
- Raw text -