Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:38:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Mike A. Harris" Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" To: jamesl AT albany DOT net cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0 In-Reply-To: <199703201652.LAA16522@keeper.albany.net> Message-ID: Organization: Total disorganization. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, James Lefavour wrote: > I believe what we need here IS two different OpenDOS products. > OpenDOS 7.xx, when the bugs are gone, will be a superior DOS, for 16 > bit computers and up. It will be outstanding, but what about the > newer Computers? 386's have been available for how many years? > Therefore, we will develop OD-32, a full 32 bit OS, and for it to be > viable, it must compete with guess who - which means compatibility, > GUI, etc. Absolutely. There is DEFINATELY a strong net interest in developing a 32bit DOS. > I do fully support "accessibility", and I don't appreciate a > disrespectful individual "beating us about the head and shoulders" > with a US regulation that doesn't apply here. OD is from Caldera, Yes, I agree, this issue is like beating a dead horse. Nothing more need be said about it. > So we aren't just talking games here - there is useful software that > is available only for the M$ Windoes environments. We will need to > keep that in mind for the future - how about modelling after the > XWindows setup - make the OS 32 bit command line, and have a GUI > layer float over that? Exactly! Couldn't say it better myself! > Just my thoughts - I have been silent too long Well, thats exactly what we need. Everyone should voice their wants/needs. If you stay quiet, then you can't expect your needs to be met. TTYL Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris Computer Consultant | Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom... My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca LINUX: Lost your video after running a game or DOSemu, email me for fix.