Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:38:04 -0500 (EST)
From: M Ross <p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org>
Subject: Re: DOS v. Windooozz
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3A909809.7870399D@pysmatic.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.10102222137.B28759-0100000@pb.seflin.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

Well said, & on point,

The Best To You & Your's,
Ross ARR
ico p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Neal wrote:

> 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
>