Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:12:10 +0100 (MET)
From: <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: running opendos with win 95
In-Reply-To: <AA9lREpW27@mpak.convey.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.970327090912.6142A-100000@xs2.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote:

> nuqneH,
> 
> > From: "Tim Bird" <tbird AT caldera DOT com>
> > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:20:23 -0700
> > To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> > Subject: Re: running opendos with win 95
> [dd]
> >
> > Not well.  Win95 is more closely "knit" with MSDOS 7.0 than was
> > Windows 3.1 with earlier MSDOS versions.  I believe it is possible
> > to dual boot them, but I think it is not possible (at the moment)
> > to boot Win95 on top of OpenDOS.  I haven't set up dual booting
> > for Windows 95 (I have for Linux) but I understand that Win95 "resists" it.
> > Also, OpenDOS will not recognize or use long filenames.  Under OpenDOS,
> > you will just see mangled directories and filename for anything longer
> > than 8.3.
> >
> btw i've heared a rumor that long filename api is not part of DOS 7 but
> part of "Windows" and does not appear until GUI is loaded.. Is that true
> or not?

That would explain why you can't get LFN while you boot MS-DOS only.
If LFN is truly just a Win95 driver, than I think letting Win95 run of OD
can't be that hard, becuase of LFN is done by Win95 itself, then why
wouldn't other things be done by Win95 as well.

	Yeep