🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 9 May 1997 12:04:17 +0100, Chris King
<ch...@csking.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>Also, some of us need to maintain a "dual-boot" Windows system, ie keep
>Win 3.1x and Win95 available (not all 16-bit apps work properly under
>Win95) and for that purpose you need to keep an older DOS around for
>compatibility.
>
>It might be possible to run Win 3.1 on top DOS 7.0, but I wouldn't like
>to try it. Has anyone managed this sucessfully ?
>
Yes, doing it right now on about 400 workstations, so far with no
problems.  Because of support headaches this was decided on instead of
supporting two versions of DOS.   We run DOS 7, a network installation
of Win31 and local installs of Win95 on each machine.

>In any case, DOS 7.0 is not *totally* identical to DOS 6.22 - remember
>that it has additional features like long filename support. At command-
>line level it looks much the same, but there will be additional MS-DOS
>functions under the bonnet, and no doubt *some* programs that use
>unofficial/undocumented function calls will fail.
>
That's true, but long file name support is only active when running in
a DOS session.  If you boot to single DOS mode, you won't have long
file name support nor will you see them in the directory listing.  And
I'm sure there are some DOS programs that will bomb, just like there
were programs that bombed under 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0,
6.2, 6.21, 6.22  and will continue to bomb the further on we go.  

>As an aside, getting rid of DirectX 3.0 is a real pain, especially if
>you installed over a previous version. Moral of the story: make damn
>sure you've reverted to your normal drivers before installing DX 3.0.
>

Agreed, DirectX may be good for developers but at the user level it
can be a real headache.
-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net