Message-ID:	<39C38638.2A6A7045@home.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:39:52 -0400
From:	"David A. Cobb" <superbiskit AT home DOT com>
Organization:	@home user
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en,ru,pdf
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: About Micro$quash DOS 7 (hiding in Win98).
References:	<39C2295E DOT 422C2A03 AT home DOT com> <005101c01fd8$f9b7e770$f4881004 AT dbcooper>
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

Patrick Moran wrote:
<a great history of the development of the x86 architecture>

THANKS, this is great background.  Actually, I was "there" looking on during
most of these twists and turns, but only as a bemused onlooker - I had a "real"
machine to work on for a living (a VAX ;-))

Actually, my question was intended more as "why can't a (Other-Than-MS)
DOS-alike run Win98 as a "client?"  Are there secret services, like memory
management, that Win still doesn't do for itself?  If I had an open source
"mini-kernel" machine manager that ran in 32-bit protected, segmented mode then
what if it tries to start "WIN.COM?"

This whole S**T of tying the core management functions in with the graphics and
other service functions just gets me!

One day, I too will go Linux.  Of course, I'll probably need to license Wabi and
an industrial-strength XServer for the sake of my family.  And I hate paying for
software.
--
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate.  Public Key at:
<http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=superbiskit>
"Don't buy or use crappy software"
"By the grace of God I am a Christian man,
 by my actions a great sinner" -- The Way of a Pilgrim [R. M. French, tr.]

- Raw text -