Message-ID:	<01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4021F7C@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From:	"da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To:	"'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: DOS v. Windooozz
Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:46:42 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

Are you crazy?

We've had messages about memory, bios, cd-rom drivers and cd-rom
standards, cp/m, logical drive partitions & drive designations, networking
and web browsers, usb, ...

Most of these have had only incidental or no references to Windoze
(which BTW is a sibling of DR-DOS, anyway!   ;-)

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	M Ross [SMTP:p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org]
> Sent:	Monday, 19 February 2001 14:15
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	DOS v. Windooozz
> 
> I have been reading all messages entered into this list for over 30days, 
> & not one message talks of DOS without some mention of Windoozz.  I 
> wonder if DOS of any sort could exist without Windoozz.   Not according 
> to all the gurus here.
> 
> I hope I am wrong & someboby can take me to task, & show me up.  I would 
> then be able to read a REAL "OPEN DOS / DR-DOS" message system.  It is 
> Sunday night, I am tired.  Am I also out of it?  Boozed?
> 
> Windoozz - Irrelevant!  I just want DOS.  Preferably DR-DOS or child of!  
> Else I will just move on to Windoozz, completely.  Why stop here?
> 
> The Best To You & Your's,
> Ross ARR
> ico p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org

- Raw text -