🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vip3k$m...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
   mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
>Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
>: You have no idea do you?
>
>Now you're getting personal.  As if you're posts weren't annoying enough,
>now they're pissing me off.

I wasn't getting personal, I just meant that you show an astounding lack of 
knowledge for one being so insuffrably superior. I am probably acting 
similarly in response, but I didn't start it.
>
>: Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
>: on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
>: run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at 
all. 
>: They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read 
"OS/2 
>: sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it 
was 
>: dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they 
would 
>: check for the version string and would not find it.
>
>I know all about this.  I know a heck of a lot about DOS and programming
>in general.  (I sort of work in the business, and by the business, I do
>mean the industry.)  Sure, anyone can go in and hack the string to "OS/2
>sucks", but what was there originally is what the manufacturer titled the
>product.  And they named is MS-DOS 7.  Now, you may not think that this is
>a version of MS-DOS, but Microsoft certainly does.  And when it comes to
>their products, their opinion on what it should be named counts just a wee
>bit more than yours.

Well you missed the point again, thus my original comment of "you have no 
idea".  The point is that it is a string that a program expects to get in 
response, the string can be anything but only something like Dos 7.0 will be 
of any value.  My point was the exeistence of this string does nothing to 
prove that any "product" called Dos 7.0 is actually there,, it is simply a 
string that is there for compatibility reasons.  It is not *necessarily* the 
name of "the product" at all.  
>
>: Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get 
"Dos-7.0" 
>: but "Win95".  
>
>Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.

Mine says "Windows 95. [Version 4.00.490]"

It used to say "Windows 95. [Version 4.00.370]"

I have never seen anyone type "ver" at what you call the "Dos 7.0" prompt 
in Win95 and get anything else.

Jeremy