Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:15:24 -0700
From:	"Alan S." <as173 AT cornell DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: DOS issues #2
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Message-id:	<3ADFB7DC.80770A64@cornell.edu>
MIME-version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
References:	<200104191133 DOT HAA09260 AT delorie DOT com> <3ADF3730 DOT B0683029 AT cornell DOT edu>
	<3ADF7874 DOT E9C574B0 AT pysmatic DOT net>
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

Hi Neal! [plus other listees who actually follow the threads...]

I was under the impression that I was asking a serious question about
the reasons behind the continued push for FreeDOS and any other "still
in development" DOS's.

I don't run much in the way of DOS applications, but I've managed to get
by using the OS/2 DOS emulator and DR DOS 6 & 7 for the last decade or
so [I've even run DR DOS in OS/2 virtual machines on occasion].  DR DOS
has its deficiencies [e.g., 'no boot from FAT32' & 'install only to
first primary partition on disk'], but am I supposed to believe that
FreeDOS -- or whatever else is 'almost ready for prime time' -- will end
up with fewer problems (within some reasonable timeframe)?

[See, Neal, I still didn't say anything good about MS DOS...]

Alan S. ["confused in California"]
4-19-2001



[2] Neal wrote:
> Alan -
> If MS-DOG is so good, why are you on the DR-DOS list ???


[1] Alan S. wrote:
> I guess I'm a little confused--  Aside from specialized needs for 
> (say) embedded platforms, why are we looking for another NEW non 
> Microsoft DOS? and what functionality would/should it have that is 
> not already present in, e.g., the OS/2 DOS emulator? [which I 
> frequently see remaindered in California for about $4.95 per copy 
> of OS/2 version 2x.]

- Raw text -