From:	fernande AT internet1 DOT net
Message-ID:	<39564358.AE20BEC6@internet1.net>
Date:	Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:37:28 -0400
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Opiniom on Different versins of DOS
References:	<002301bfde9b$eaf539a0$0abf06d5 AT mad> <3956310C DOT C5EA4DC5 AT pysmatic DOT net>
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

Neal,

I visited your dosonly sites and have questions regarding the following
quoted material.  Please don't take this as negative criticism.  I am
very interested in hearing your thoughts and resigning.

> Good DOS: PC-DOS 3.1 & 3.3, MS-DOS 3.1, 3.3, 4.01 & 6.22, DR-DOS 6.0 & 7.02, Novell DOS 7. 
> Bad DOS: MS-DOS 3.2, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0, DR-DOS 3.41 & 5.0, PC-DOS 3.2, 4.0, 5.0 & 6.0. 
> Iffy DOS: DR-DOS 7.03, OpenDOS 7.01, MS-DOS 7 (hidden in Win95). 

I am wondering how you arrived at some of your conclusions on the
different versions.  I have been under the impression that anything
under 3.3 was "bad", or at least not worth the trouble, and 4.x was
really bad.  Also that 7.03 of DR-DOS was well kinda iffy, like you say
:-)  I don't think I have ever heard anything wrong with any companies
6.x, with the exception of MS 6.2...I think.  Plus isn't Novel DOS 7 the
same as OpenDOS 7.01? Furthermore, I thought DOS 5.xx was supposed to be
a really good older version to have...I used IBM DOS 5.02, and thought
it was great.

Chad Fernandez
Michigan, USA

- Raw text -