Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:54:54 -0700
From: "Marc D. Williams" <marcdw AT flash DOT net>
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Opiniom on Different versins of DOS
Message-ID: <20000625235454.B800@flash.net>
Mail-Followup-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
References: <002301bfde9b$eaf539a0$0abf06d5 AT mad> <3956310C DOT C5EA4DC5 AT pysmatic DOT net> <39564358 DOT AE20BEC6 AT internet1 DOT net> <3956500B DOT C2E3A355 AT pysmatic DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <3956500B.C2E3A355@pysmatic.net>; from lbneal@pysmatic.net on Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 11:31:40AM -0700
X-Operating-System: Slackware 3.9 Linux DigiSensei 2.0.38 i586
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 11:31:40AM -0700, Neal wrote:
> 
> MS-DOS 5.00 is notoriously bad, I'm not familiar with 5.01 or 5.02.
> 
Hmm, I was always figured 5.00 was one of their better offerings.
Never had problems with it and on a couple of old machines I used
it exclusively (wouldn't put any higher versions as they didn't offer
anything worth upgrading for).
I don't remember if there ever was an MS-DOS 5.01 or higher.

> The list is presented to "suggest" ways to avoid unnecessary problems when
> using an older DOS or even a newer one.  Folks that have never used DOS,
> should be kinda steered away from bad versions, so they don't have
> unnecessary problems :-)
>
I haven't been to the page yet but I assume you list what's bad about
various versions? The MS-DOS 5 thing seems not right.
Probably something I'm unaware of.

 
-- 
>>ANIME SENSHI<<

Marc D. Williams
marcdw AT flash DOT net
http://www.oldskool.org/~tvdog/ -- DOS Internet & Tandy 1000
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Platform/8269/ -- Win3.x Makeover