Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:21:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: tucker <tucker AT together DOT net>
cc: "opendos AT delorie DOT com" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: why?
In-Reply-To: <199707130408.AAA00025@mx01.together.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.970714142048.14011A-100000@hoth.amu.edu.pl>
Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
Latent-time: +2:00r
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, tucker wrote:

> >I haven't tried now, but if i can use the command.com now as 
> Win95 DOS box,
> >it seems COD is moving toward Win95 compatibility. Has anyone 
> 
> What could there possibly be to gain from running win95 from 
> Opendos instead of whatever version of DOS MS using to load 
> '95?  I'm missing the point here somewhere - if there is one.
Theory behind Win95 is that it doesn't need DOS at all, even to boot. The
truth is that it relies on underlying DOS and therefore it won't work on any
DOS other than M$-FOG...