🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v8usi$m...@tornews.torolab.ibm.com>,
l...@torolab.ibm.com (Leo Comitale) wrote:
>>: Actually Dos is not necessary for os/2 I can install os/2 without dos
>>: (note: os/2 command line is not the same as dos). I can boot to os/2.

>>OS/2 is the disk operating system, i.e. the text-based command prompt;
>>the Presentation Manager is the GUI.  This is completely analogous to DOS
>>7.0 as the disk operating system and Win95 as the GUI.  Sure, you can't
>>have Win95 without DOS 7.0, but you can't have the OS/2 Presentation
>>Manager without the underlying OS/2 disk operating system either.

>Can you start Windows 95 in text mode and p-multitask any number of
>protected mode applications from "DOS 7.0"?  If so then your analogy is
>correct, otherwise it isn't.

Leo, consider the following:

        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

        3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
            interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
            multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
            OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and simple.


Take away the GUI from any of the Microsoft so called OS's and you are
left empty.  Or MT as Joseph Coughlan so aptly points out.  It's just
that simple.


>Leo Comitale



Bill Oconnor