🚀 go-pugleaf

M.A.S...@ukc.ac.uk (Martin Searle) wrote:

> ***** WARNING THIS IS POTENTIALLY A DANGEROUS THING TO DO ********
> ***** DO NOT BLAME ME IF IT BREAKS WIN95 *************************
>
>Hi folks,
>
>  To prove DOS is still there rename the file WIN.COM in your WIN95
>directory (put a copy on a disk before you do this) to something else. 
>Restart your PC and hey presto DOS version 7 !. To get your Windows going
>again rename it back to WIN.COM in the WIN95 dir, using DOS's REN command. 
>
>**** END OF DANGER ZONE REST EASY FROM 'ERE ON  ********
>
>WIN95 a better windows, YES !, Multitasking NO!. Martin's definition: only
>slightly less of a big virus than Windows 3.1. If you want decent
>Multi-tasking then go for OS/2 or Linux, Me I'll stick with 3.1 until a
>new fixed version of Windows 95 comes out. 
>
>Martin Searle
>Micro Support Group
>UKC
>
>I've tried CIV with a pre-release copy of WIN95 and guess what it 
>couldn't handle the dazzling graphics of the DOS version without 
>blurring them unacceptably !.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.  Just because Windows 95
still has a DOS command line interface, doesn't mean it's not a true
operating system.  The win.com application is just it's graphical
component, that's all.  

And it does have true preemptive multitasking... but for 32-bit apps.