🚀 go-pugleaf

Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
>> In message <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net> - tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wri
>> :>Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
>>   NO until it doesn't need DOS anymore.
>I don't think Win95 -had- to have DOS included, but it would've had a hard
>time running any DOS apps without some kind of DOS version lurking around.

What you *think* is quite irrelevant, the facts say otherwise. Face them.
The 'design' of Windows 95 makes DOS a necessary component, not for running
DOS apps, but for running Windows 95 *itself* *and* every other app, including
win32 apps. It needs it for booting, for 'process information' (PSPs) and as
a disk/file system helper.
Windows 95 can *NOT* run without it's DOS component.
But by definition Windows 95, as it is packaged and delivered, is a 'true' OS
since you don't need anything else. Had DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 been delivered in
one package, they would have been just as much of a 'real' OS as Windows 95.
You just don't get the option of choosing your DOS-provider and -version
anymore. So much for choices.
If Windows 95 is ok by you, fine. But don't pretend it's something it's not.
-- 
Illya Vaes  (iv...@hr.ns.nl)
Holland Railconsult BV, Signalling CAD
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.358586, Fax 357212           "Do...or do not, there is no try" - Yoda