Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:52:35 -0400 (EDT)
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: pierre AT tycho DOT com
cc: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: A few FS notions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970531142309.8865B-100000@dilu.ml.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970531154745.11495F-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 31 May 1997, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

> On Sat, 31 May 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> 
> > Right, a 32bit DOS would have it's own 32bit executables (not
> > exectable in any way on 16 bit DOS period) and would start out
> > executing in flat 32 bit mode.  DPMI would only be needed for
> > programs written for 16bit DOS with DPMI to allow 32bit flat.
> 
> And we could create a DOS extender to make the OpenDOS/32 executables run
> on 16 bit DOS, no? ;-)

No.  The OpenDOS/32 would be quite different from a 16bit DOS,
and could be considered a different OS.  It would depend exactly
how it was designed, but I'd put my money on it that it wouldn't
be possible.  It certainly wouldn't be possible on 16bit machines
running 16bit DOS, and probably not on 32bit DOS either.  With
Shared libs, and other features, the executables would probably
be quite different from 16bit DOS ones.  Besides, if you have a
386, and if OD/32 exists, why on earth wouldn't you be using it?

The only way to know for sure is to decide on what is to become
of OD/32...


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell: The #1 Late Night talk radio program.