🚀 go-pugleaf

mdu...@ionet.net  (Michael Duffy) wrote:

>>> Yeah, DOS is at the core, just like it is in OS/2 and Windows NT.
>>
>>Do you know what you're talking about? Buy a new computer. Format
>>the hard drive totally. Install OS/2. It works. You can run DOS
>>programs. All without an MS product in sight.

>Well, DOS is still at the core of Win95 (used to load it and support some
>drivers).  However, it is not at the core of either OS/2 or Windows NT.
>OS/2 has DOS code that it calls for compatibility when you run a DOS or
>Windows session, but the OS itself does not depend on it (same with WinNT,
>though I don't know if NT supports DOS or Windows programs..  haven't used
>it.)

>The DOS code in OS/2 is probably from IBM's version of DOS, PC-DOS, and
>not MS-DOS (I may be mistaken).  OS/2 does use MS code for Windows
>emulation though.

It's my understanding that OS/2 Warp, Blue Box legally cannot have ANY
M$ code in it as IBM's licence aggreement with M$ finished earlier
this year.  NT does support DOS and Windows programs, supports and
protects them a darn sight better then Win95.  I would however like to
know how NT could possibly be based on DOS as it was written on a DEC!
and is a cross-platform o/s based on a HAL.  In fact, correct me if
I'm wrong, but wasn't the first version of NT for the Alpha.  Well
whatever Networks had it up and running on an alpha soon after it was
released.  
Anyway from experience's associates have had with the dreaded Win95
its implementation of DOS is severly flawed. (just try modifying your
system files for one 'feature').  Personally I'll stick with
3.xx/Linux and if I need 32-bit Windows I'll go to either WINE,
DOSemu, or NT.

Andrae Muys