🚀 go-pugleaf

David L Webster wrote:
[snip]
> Well,  continuing in the blunt vein, when I read about people who
> think they need to juggle different versions of DOS using bootdisks,
> dual boots etc, I wonder why they put themselves through all that
> hassle.
> 
> When DOS 3.1 came out, I dumped 3.0, same thing for 3.3.  When 5.0 was
> out, I certainly didn't keep 3.3 boot disks around for anything (note
> I didn't mention DOS 4, I did skip that one which was a real stinker).
> When 6.0 hit the streets, 5.0 was history.   I dumped OLD DOS (6.22)
> in August '95 and have only used DOS 7 since then for everything.  I
> use the same multi config options that I used in 6.22.  No boot disks,
> no dual booting different versions of DOS.  I have yet to find a DOS
> program I couldn't get to work.  Besides a slightly larger footprint
> in conventional memory, it's the same old DOS.  And for those few WIN
> 3.1 apps that won't work under 95?   I run WFW3.11 from DOS 7, works
> great.  No boot disks, no dual DOS, no hassle.
[snip]
David, that slightly larger footprint in conventional memory can force
some hardware drivers to load low, because they no longer all fit into
upper memory.  That, in turn, reduces the conventional memory available
below the minimum needed for some software.  My wife and I have that
problem on both our computers.  Short of buying new hardware with
smaller drivers, we cannot use the DOS software in question under
Win95.  It was cheaper (and not much more difficult than installing new
hardware) to decipher how Win95 manages its several copies of CONFIG.SYS
and AUTOEXEC.BAT and set up a nice system where I have all needed
configurations of DOS 6.22 and Win95 DOS mode available from just one
lonely icon in Win95.  Very little hassle, no mess, no boot disks.
AND NECESSARY.

--Paul