To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:12:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Using Loader with DRDOS and WIN95 Message-ID: <20000125.201728.-927299.3.editor@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-221 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: Bruce Morgen Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:50:18 +0100 (MET) Bernie writes: > Bruce Morgen wrote: > (Please note that I left out most of the parts where I could say > something > like "I agree.") > > >That API exists only after > >the GUI is loaded and running. > > Yes, that's correct. > > >> IMHO those two are all that is needed for DOS (+ command.com or > >> something like it of course). > > > >Actually, only IO.SYS and a > >shell like COMMAND.COM are > >needed -- from DOS 7 on, > >MSDOS.SYS is a text file > >used by the GUI loader > >started by WIN.COM. > > You are very correct, sorry my misstake. No problem, we live to serve. :-) > > >> In Win9x the computer boots DOS > > > >Yes! > > > >> (with 32bit API) and > > > >No -- this API doesn't exist > >until the GUI is running! > > Hmm... Sorry but no. If that was the case then I couldn't be able to > start > win.com at all on my computer since the 32bit APIs have a very nasty > bug in > them that makes my AMD K6-2 400 stop ("IOS error" or somthing like > that). I have now installed the bugfix. Sorry, you're logic here eludes me. Are you implying that the "bugfix" is to a DOS component and not some part of the GUI? > > >One can confirm the absence > >of the 32-bit API by the > >fact that no long filenames > >are visible unless the GUI > >is running! > > Doesn't the 32bit API provide anything else but LFN and FAT32 > support? Yes, I'm just using those as indicators of the API's presence, not the (vast, I'm sure) extent of its services. > > >Wrong. These are DOS 7 files > >and can't run without a > >running GUI if you can do > >without long filename support. > > I must say I have never tried... I'll do a test later today if I > remember. > (setver.exe might be needed) Nope. XCOPY, FC, FORMAT, etc. in the WINDOWS\COMMAND directory will run fine in "Safe Mode Command Prompt Only," which is as raw a DOS 7 as you can get! > > >> * (more or less) impossible to install hardware into it > > > >Sorry, here we disagree. If > >you do things in the correct > >order, Win95's hardware > >detection is really quite > >reliable given the correct > >driver(s). > > Really? I now have my NIC, SB16 and TV-Card on the same IRQ (5) > because > that's the only way I've found (so far) that Windows accept them > (impossible to find the NIC otherwise - but I knew it was working). > And > neither is now recognized as the things they are so the drivers > don't work (luckily things seems to work anyway). Your hardware doesn't seem to support enough IRQ alternatives, can't blame that on Windoze. It have a similarly crowded card collection -- NIC, modem, two active serial ports, IRQ/DMA-hungry sound card, SCSI controller, Sony proprietary CD-ROM interface -- with no conflicts at all. > > >> * slows down your computer so much > > > >Again we disagree, on my > >pre-Pentium hardware Win95 is > >no slower overall than Win3.11. > > Hmm.. Well it's slower on all my computers (486, Pentium, Pentium > MMX and > AMD K6) then DOS. Sure, but DOS isn't really an operating system, it's a sort of extended monitor with disk access -- warm- over CP/M with a few Unix- like enhancements. It has virtually no overhead because (outside of things like device drivers and memory managers) it's pretty much idle until its called on to do something. Multitaskers like Windoze and UNIX are active all the time and are much more CPU- intensive -- of course they actually retain control of the hardware, whereas single-task, non-reentrant stuff like DOS pretty much steps aside and lets the app of the moment take control. > Although Win 3.x multitasking has always worked better > then Win9x's (I know I'm relativly alone on that) Yes, you are. Win95 has been both (a little) less prone to crash and (a lot) better at crash recovery than Win3.11 here. > I have no idea if Win 3.x > or Win9x is fastest. It's Win95 by a nose here, especially when comparing 32-bit vs. 16-bit versions of the same app. > > >It does take up more RAM, but I > >have a fairly fast SCSI disk > >subsystem and disk swapping is > >quite fast -- and much less > >crash-prone that is is under > >Win3.11. > > It's not often I get crashes in 3.x - 9x (or NT for that matter) > crashed on > a daily basis for me (even if I only used them for a few minutes). I found Win3.11 crashed at least once a day, usually more. Win95 rarely crashes more than once a day and generally doesn't require a reset button cold boot like Win3.11 often did. Faint praise for M$, I know. :-) > Tip: > Keep clear of the right mouse button in 9x and NT. Thanks, I've never noticed that one, now I'll be alert for it! > > >> * way to big (or "demanding on the hardware") > > > >Win95 works OK in 16, 24, or > >32 MB. I can't say the same > >for Win98 or NT. > > But I'm not comparing with those OS but with DOS. That's an apples vs, oranges comparison, but I take your point. > > Anyway, it's important (IMHO) that we point out the things that are > incorrect in Windows and not just poor out random errors that are > results of incorrect installations etc. As far as I know, my Windoze install is clean and conflict- free. It still crashes, but perhaps there's an intermittent SIMM or cache chip -- it's hard to know when you run a homebrew system built largely from old/spare parts! :-) > I think that if one hears one thing in an arguement that is easily > proved > wrong then the entire discussion is believed to be wrong by many > people. You certainly could be right there, Bernie. Thanks for writing -- and apologies to all for wandering so far off-topic! ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.