Message-ID: <3ADFC18E.C255720B@dosonly.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:56:46 -0700
From: Neal <neal AT dosonly DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL}  (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DOS issues #2
References: <200104191133 DOT HAA09260 AT delorie DOT com> <3ADF3730 DOT B0683029 AT cornell DOT edu>
	 <3ADF7874 DOT E9C574B0 AT pysmatic DOT net> <3ADFB7DC DOT 80770A64 AT cornell DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

Alan -

 1. "DOS" has a surprising level of interest (perhaps feed by Linux reminding folks of speed :)

 2. I support MOE-DOS and DR-DOS(but Lineo doesn't), since Bill has declared DOS dead to further
    force WinDers ahead. (MOE-DOS is not yet in any stage of maturity)

 3. The DOS emulator in Winders and NT appears to be MS-DOG 5.0 or approximate. (Yuk)

 4. I like DOS for the speed and control NOT allowed in WinDers.

 5. FreeDOS appears to be a "committee" out of control, so I have abandoned my interest.

 6. Thanks to DR, Novell and Caldera, DOS made some progress (No thanks to Bill).

 7. DOS can and will move into the future, the aps, source, etc still live.

 8. FAT32 is not DOS, it's an another abortion by Bill!!  DOS is NOT a Winders Vehicle it is
    an OS unto itself.  It deserves to have a valid file system that "extends" FAT16 w/o
    the penalties of FAT32!

Neal
-- 
The DOS Places...........
http://dosonly.com/
http://dosonly.net/
http://drdos.pysmatic.net/
http://drdos.port5.com/
http://drdos.portland.co.uk/
http://moedos.net/
=============================


"Alan S." wrote:
> 
> Hi Neal! [plus other listees who actually follow the threads...]
> 
> I was under the impression that I was asking a serious question about
> the reasons behind the continued push for FreeDOS and any other "still
> in development" DOS's.
> 
> I don't run much in the way of DOS applications, but I've managed to get
> by using the OS/2 DOS emulator and DR DOS 6 & 7 for the last decade or
> so [I've even run DR DOS in OS/2 virtual machines on occasion].  DR DOS
> has its deficiencies [e.g., 'no boot from FAT32' & 'install only to
> first primary partition on disk'], but am I supposed to believe that
> FreeDOS -- or whatever else is 'almost ready for prime time' -- will end
> up with fewer problems (within some reasonable timeframe)?
> 
> [See, Neal, I still didn't say anything good about MS DOS...]
> 
> Alan S. ["confused in California"]
> 4-19-2001
> 
> [2] Neal wrote:
> > Alan -
> > If MS-DOG is so good, why are you on the DR-DOS list ???
> 
> [1] Alan S. wrote:
> > I guess I'm a little confused--  Aside from specialized needs for
> > (say) embedded platforms, why are we looking for another NEW non
> > Microsoft DOS? and what functionality would/should it have that is
> > not already present in, e.g., the OS/2 DOS emulator? [which I
> > frequently see remaindered in California for about $4.95 per copy
> > of OS/2 version 2x.]