Message-ID: <3A909809.7870399D@pysmatic.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:50:33 -0700
From: Neal <lbneal AT pysmatic DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DOS v. Windooozz
References: <Pine DOT 3 DOT 89 DOT 10102182208 DOT A27964-0100000 AT pb DOT seflin DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

I agree! WinDoes is NOT needed or appropriate for the OpenDOS/DR-DOS
list!

GEM and other "GUI" or "GUI like" options for DOS are alive and well..

http://4gem.port5.com/ has hooks for GEM.

Neal
====

M Ross wrote:
> 
> I have been reading all messages entered into this list for over 30days,
> & not one message talks of DOS without some mention of Windoozz.  I
> wonder if DOS of any sort could exist without Windoozz.   Not according
> to all the gurus here.
> 
> I hope I am wrong & someboby can take me to task, & show me up.  I would
> then be able to read a REAL "OPEN DOS / DR-DOS" message system.  It is
> Sunday night, I am tired.  Am I also out of it?  Boozed?
> 
> Windoozz - Irrelevant!  I just want DOS.  Preferably DR-DOS or child of!
> Else I will just move on to Windoozz, completely.  Why stop here?
> 
> The Best To You & Your's,
> Ross ARR
> ico p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org