Message-Id: <36913F8C.474CA0C@cableol.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 22:24:12 +0000
From: Allens <allen DOT asjp AT cableol DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: djgpp and windows2000
References: <199901031437 DOT JAA05213 AT delorie DOT com> <jBRj2.6465$qF5 DOT 13189065 AT lwnws01 DOT ne DOT mediaone DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Sorry, that was my info.  Perhaps I shouldn't trust peoples info on the debian
newsgroup as much as that.  I went to that windows site, and (probably because 
my search was too brief) I couldn't find anything about dos at all.
What I heard was that microsoft were breaking dos support to make Win 2000 more 
stable.  

			Peter Allen
taxman. wrote:
> 
> If you travel over to the Win2000 product page on www.microsoft.com/windows/
> it looks like they actually increased support for DOS.  Whoever got the info
> that it doesn't support DOS was wrong.
> 
> <dinggoum AT 163 DOT net> wrote in message
> news:199901031437 DOT JAA05213 AT delorie DOT com...
> >What is MS's exact meaning about that W2K will not support dos?
> >
> >(a)  needn't  dos  , run dos program as well as win9x .
> >(b)  can't boot from dos , run dos program well .
> >(c)  run dos program like in NT console .
> >(d)  can't use anything about dos .
> >
> >What can we do to let MS know that it's a wrong way
> >if the answer is (d)?