Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:56:53 RST From: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru (-= ArkanoiD =-) Reply-To: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru Message-Id: <370@mpak.convey.ru> To: rgawenda AT pobox DOT com, "Mike, A., Harris"@pool1.convey.ru, Cc: "opendos AT delorie DOT com"@pool1.convey.ru, Subject: Re: CP/M web site looking for CP/M-86 Organization: International Brownian Movement Lines: 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk nuqneH, In message <199709172352 DOT WAA16191 AT lince DOT las DOT es> "Rafa Gawenda" writes: > On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:58:17 -0400 (EDT), Mike A. Harris wrote: > > >> > Yes, it's better typying "for %%1 in *.* do type %1" (PC /MS DOS) than "type *.*" DR/Novell/Open DOS. > >> > This is only one of the one hundred advantages of this "free" DOS. > >> > >> I don't care. I never do. I type "cat *" on any of those. > > > >Heheheh. Me too. When you install 4DOS and some UNIX utilities > >on ANY DOS version, the differences tend to be less important. > > What are we talking about... Corel Draw of a DOS Operating System?! > Install IBM PCDOS 7.0 and Caldera OpenDOS 7.01 and compare then. > Both are more or less buggy, but one of them has more power builtin, First,one of them is *much* more buggy. Second,the "power builtin" is questionable. Third,it _does not_ multitask. > and IT multitasks. The other one... pff! -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_ CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|