Message-Id: <199703211330.OAA07535@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>
From: "yeep" <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc: <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
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!