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 970413023241 DOT 1321M-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
Message-Id: <AAwuBKpe27@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization: International Brownian Movement
From: "-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 14:06:34 +0300
Subject: Re: 1 question about the future of OpenDos
Lines: 30
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

nuqneH,

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> X-Sender: root AT capslock DOT com
> 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: 1 question about the future of OpenDos
[dd]
> > > never been what it should be, and the OD multitasking looks good
> > > so far, it still has a way to go though.
> > >
> >
> > Already *does* look good? You mean taskmgr? Or future oDOS-CDOS merge -
> > if it happens?
>
> I was refering to the way the taskmgr actually SAVES screens
> before switching tasks.  DESQview usually destroyed graphics
> screens.

Usually? AFAIR it does not - at least it did not on my system.
Seems to be configuration problem.. and DESQview is more powerful than
taskmgr (IMHO).

Anyways none of the two can multitask better than CDOS386-like systems can.
--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|