Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:23:58 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DOS Box clear-up
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19990126081212.1c37c74a@shadow.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990126161515.13564C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Ralph Proctor wrote:

> >	{ Find the [Options] section }
> >	{ Add or change the line "BootGUI=0" }
> >	{ Exit editor }
> >
> >	attrib +h +r +s msdos.sys
> 
> Hello Chris:
> 
> Good tip! This is just the way I wanted to run Windows 95. That is: Boot up
> into DOS (as I do now with Windows 3.11) and then when I am ready go to
> Windows.

I think a better way is to leave BootGUI at its non-zero setting, but 
introduce non-zero BootMulti and BootMenu entries.  This causes Windows 
to present a menu at startup for a few seconds, and you then can choose 
whether to boot into plain DOS or into Windows.

The reason I think this is better is because booting Windows usually 
requires using a separate configuration section in CONFIG.SYS and 
AUTOEXEC.BAT anyway, so exiting Windows to DOS prompt leaves you with
the wrong system configuration.

For example, the DOS configuration might need MSCDEX, SmartDrv, and other 
device drivers and TSRs which are not required when Windows is launched.

> Do you see any reason why an ordinary user (as opposed to a programming
> fanatic) would object to this way of getting into W95. Is there any
> side-effect you have not mentioned?

The BootGUI=0 way also runs some risk of losing files if the user 
switches the machine at a wrong moment.