🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 8 May 97 09:02:00 +1100, ch...@vci.com.au (Chris Rogers)
wrote:

>>>The DOS version of Win95 is just fine for games. There really is no
>>>need for DOS6.22 if you have Win95. You do not run DOS games
>>>in a DOS window. In some cases (like back to baghdad) you can
>
>Well, not usually, but there *ARE* times when it is helpful to get
>back to old DOS. I have 2 Pentiums at home, and have found that on
>one of them, Duke3D runs much smoother under old DOS. There are
>also other games that will not run under anything BUT old DOS/WINDOWS.
>
>>>As for DirectX 3 messing up DOS games... No way. Anyone
>>>who thinks otherwise does not understand what is going on
>>>with DOS/Win95. Period. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it
>>>is.
>
>hmm..... I am sorry but my newsserver has not got the start of this
>thread - hence I have missed the DirectX connection.
>But as far as DOS 6.22 is concerned, I hate to be just as blunt,
>but anyone who says that OLD DOS is NEVER needed just has no
>clues at all either.
>

Hmm, when I boot my PC, I can always access DOS 6.22 via the first
boot-menu and then DOS 7 via the second boot menu. I didn't find any
difference in game performance, since I set up my DOS 7 config.sys +
autoexec.bat parts the same way as the DOS 6.22 files.
Anyway, I still use DOS 6.22 instead of DOS 7. Don't know why, but it
feels more aquainted to me:-)
However, I still use the normal Win95. In the other PC in my home,
there is already Win95 B installed, so no chance for DOS 6.22 (because
of the FAT 32). DOS 7 works just fine there.

Jan

---
jan.m...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de
http://stud-www.uni-marburg.de/~Mandler