Message-Id: <199703211330.OAA07535@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> From: "yeep" Cc: Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist 2.0 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:37:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >12] Make W95 run from OpenDOS > > > > Isn't this a little like getting people to work together to build a > > better performing, finely-tuned, economical engine and then saying you also > > want to be able to put it in a Chevy Suburban? Once you have an improved > > version of OpenDOS with pre-emptive multitasking, built-in TCP/IP and > > available Internet tools and a graphical menu, what would running Windoze95 > > do for you besides give you access to a lot of bloated, badly-written > > programs? > > I agree somewhat with this statement. I mean, isn't the point of > running OpenDOS to allow DOS to survive? > And also to improve it in as many ways as possible? > Doesn't W95's kernel vary drastically from previous DOS kernels? > Don't W95 users shy away from DOS anyways? > > I don't see much point in making W95 run from OpenDOS, in fact I > find that that statement doesn't make any sense. It makes it > sound like W95 is an application and not an OS. (Not that I > think it *IS* an OS anyways). I mean its like saying "Make VMS > run from OpenDOS" isn't it? > > A much better way of saying it would be to say "Make W95 > *PROGRAMS* run from OpenDOS". Then I could see it making more > sense. Okay, so it might be stupid. But wouldn't it be a killer to have Win95 run from OpenDOS? After all Win95 isn't an OS, it's merely a shell running on MS-DOS 7.0, regardless of what Micro$oft claims! Running Win95 apps from OpenDOS, that'd also be a nice backstab to M$! Image the headlines: Forget Windows, Run you Windows applicstions from DOS, OpenDOSQQQQ Yeep I'll take the 'run win95' part from my wishlist, though I think it would be cool if it was made possible!