To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970328142140 DOT 7284X-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
Message-Id: <AAqFwFpSQ7@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization: International Brownian Movement
From: "-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 97 14:45:56 +0300
Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS Startup logo [brannanp]
Lines: 59
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

nuqneH,

> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:28:15 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> To: -= ArkanoiD =- <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
> cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS Startup logo [brannanp]
[dd]
>
> It's easy:  I don't know anyone that has PC-DOS 7.0 and the first
> time that I used it, I couldn't get a lot of things working that
> I was used to.  For example:  I'm used to the way DOS EDIT works.
> Borland's IDE's, Boxer, many other DOS editors work the same way
> with cut and paste, etc...  IBM's edit is more confusing to use
> and more "Unixish" if you will.  (So is OD's BTW).

I never use DOS edit anyways - and if you need WordStarish editor there are
*hundreds* of PD ones. So there is no actual need to have one in DOS package.
It is ok,but if it is not there it is ok too. Absense of edlin in some dos
distributions is more annoying.

> A few other
> minor differences kept me away from it.  MSDOS 5.0 lacks a number
> of things that 6.22 has.  Such as the HELP program.  Although
> HELP sucks bad, it is better than nothing, and has come to my aid
> many times. (schematics for a null modem, setting up COUNTRY
> specific stuff, KEYB, etc...  things that no-one really uses in
> Canada/US).  Without HELP, I would have needed a DOS reference of
> some kind which was not at hand.

Flambeaux (sp?) Software's DOS Help! isn't satisfying?

>  Also, lots of software that I
> have expects DOS 6.0 or higher.  5.0 doesn't cut it.

Really? What software? I've never seen a program that requires DOS 6 -
actually it has no new API features that could tempt someone to write such
a program..

> It's not
> that I *like* 6.22, but rather that it is EASILY available from
> almost everyone that you know,

Yep ;). And i am trying to figure out why. Why people did 5.0->6.x "upgrade".

>and it is the standard.

Not more than 5.0.

> OpenDOS
> will emerge now to take over that position.
>

I hope so.
--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|