🚀 go-pugleaf

>Ok, it's single-tasking like DOS, it has a 640K limit like dos, it
>runs real mode dos programs like dos, the networking support isn't there
>like dos, it doesn't have a gui like dos, it has a C:\> prompt like
>dos, it has all the dos function calls..... BUT it isn't dos.   Geee,
>it looks kind of like it.  so tell me, WHAT IS DIFFERENT?

It is not 100% DOS compatible (for one thing).

Actually to call it DOS is an insult to DOS. 
It is a crappy "Windows" half-ass imitation of DOS. 
Furthur proving the lack of imagination from Microsoft.

When OS/2 load a Virtual Machine, and you get a command line, is that
DOS? I don't think so. It is OS/2's VERSION of what DOS should be.
Windows *tries* to do this (you figure that if *anyone* could copy
DOS, it should be the guys at MS!!) but not very well. 

In the list of "incompatible" software, DOS games are a lot of them.
They can't even copy themselves right.

If is really *was* DOS under there, it would at leat be a SLIGHT
improvement over that crap that you are trying to convence the entire
net is DOS. 

Windows 3.1 was trying to pretend that is wasn't DOS, Windows 95 is
pretending that it is.

You OS/2 guys should be dancing and jumping for joy over that. And all
the Windows freaks can't say a thing in denial.