>Received: by krypton.rain.com (rnr)
       via rnr; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:53:53 -0800
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-Message-From: "John T Ross" <johnross AT gci DOT net>
Subject: Re: Combining DR-DOS 7.03 with OEM DR-DOS 7.05 to gain LBA capabilities
From: shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com (Leonard Erickson)
Message-ID: <20020926.235353.4c3.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:53:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <002801c264fd$d34d09a0$3036ed18@ross2mustss87c>
Organization: Shadownet
User-Agent: rnr/2.50
Received: from krypton by qiclab.scn.rain.com; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 03:11 PDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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

In mail (yesterday) you write:

> It appears the next step would be Caldera's OpenDOS 7.02. In simple
> layman's terms what does it do that DR-DOS 7.03 doesn't?

DR-DOS 7.03 was the next version of Caldera OpenDos 7.02

The versions get a bit weird. I think it went something like this:

Digital Research sold DR-DOS to Novell, resulting in Novell DOS 6.
I think Novell released Novell DOS 7.
Caldera bought it from Novell. 

That gave us OpenDos 7.0 or 7.01 (I forget which. Then there was 7.02,
and then they went back to the DR-DOS name with 7.03.

And if I've missed details, it's because they were even more
convoluted.

-- 
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G})
 shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com        <--preferred
leonard AT qiclab DOT scn DOT rain DOT com     <--last resort