Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4021F5A@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: M$-DOS 7.10 (was Web browsers, CD-ROM drivers, nee Dr-dos... 
	Installed!)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:38:02 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

See below ...

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Patrick Moran [SMTP:pmoran22 AT yahoo DOT com]
> Sent:	Thursday, 15 February 2001 4:12
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	Re: Web browsers, CD-ROM drivers (was Dr-dos... Installed!)
> 
	[da Silva, Joe]  ----- snip -----

> > >
> > [da Silva, Joe]
> >
> > Hmmm ... I *always* load the CD-ROM drivers (I have enough
> > memory to fit them, so why not? I often boot just to M$-DOS
> > 7.10 ;-) and never have a problem with Windoze 95B crashing.
> 
> 7.10 is WINDOZE 98 DOS and like I said,they seem to have fixed the
> problem in 98. 7.0 is WINDOZE 95 DOS. At least my OSR-2 is. There is
> also an OSR 2.1 and maybe that version has MSDOS 7.10. But believe me we
> had many problems with this when I worked for Gateway Customer Service.
> Also which CONFIG and AUROEXEC are these located? If it is in CONFIG.SYS
> and AUTOEXEC.BAT, this is what causes WINDOZE 95 to crash. I had to have
> clients remove those lines or usually just changed the name of the files
> so there would be no CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC at all. WINDOZE does not
> need them. 95 was too stupid to know that the drivers had already been
> loaded. I mean my God, when I try and load a driver on DOS, it tells me
> that the driver is already loaded and refuses to load it again. DRMOUSE,
> NWCACHE, NWCDEX or even if I try to load MSCDEX on top of NWCDEX.
> 
> WINDOZE 95 was one of the worse pieces of crap MS ever put out, but I
> will never know which is the worst, because when you are scraping the
> bottom of the barrel, how can you tell the difference!!!!!
> 
	[da Silva, Joe]  

	Hmmmm!!!!  M$ have not changed the kernel much, despite
	many releases and versions of Windoze 9X. Their version
	numbering is total cr*p, too!!!

	Now ... do you _really_ think I don't know what @#$ O/S (well,
	O/Ses, actually) I have installed on this machine?!!!  Really!!!
	Sure, the original Windoze 95 or 95A (I think that was a
	second release) used M$-DOS 7.00 ... But my Windoze 95B is
	M$-DOS 7.10!!! Forget Windoze 98, this (AFAIK) uses the same
	kernel as it's predecessor and has nothing to offer the end user
	but more bloat and bugs and runs much slower (IMHO ;-)!!!