🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vb4a8$f...@news.iadfw.net>,
                  tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wrote:

>>        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

>True.

>>        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

>Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.
>Just because OS/2 is superior (ie: multi-tasks in command line mode)
>doesn't mean that Win95's command line is DOS. It looks the same, and
>has the same (or similar) file names (as MS-DOS) because the
>programmers over at MS have little imagination (proof is in the fact
>that every complimentable feature in Win95 appeard somewhere else
>first).

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck then
it must be DOS.  And it IS, plain in simple.

>           Win95's command line is singletasking because MS has the
>attitude of "Who needs to multi-task in command line mode?" --

Yeah sure, who needs to multitask?  Get real!

>Very similar to their "640K? That's more than anyone will EVER need!"
>attitude back in 1982.
>...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong.

It is Dos and that is just plain true.


>That is like calling Julian Lennon "John Lennon". He looks the same,
>sounds the same, sings the same...

??????

>>    3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
>>        interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
>>        multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
>>        OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and simple.


>>Take away the GUI from any of the Microsoft so called OS's and you are
>>left empty.  Or MT as Joseph Coughlan so aptly points out.  It's just
>>that simple.


>I agree. OS/2 is a superior product, but the INFERIOR product is not
>as inferior as you make it out to be.

Win 95 less the GUI is Dos and it is inferior, plain and simple.

>                                     Shame that IBM has an inept
>marketing department.

What the hell has IBM's marketing dept got to do with the fact that
Win 95 minus the GUI = Dos?.


>                  Windows 95 will sell millions of copies,

The P. T. Barnum school of marketing at Microsoft.

>it will soon become the standard, and IBM will rush behind to be
>compatable.


No it won't.  Microsoft has already given it the kiss of death.  It
is probably the first time in the history of computing where a major
product was pronounced "dead" while it was still in BETA.  This is
exactly what Microsoft has stated relative to Win 95.  It it NOT even
released and Microsoft has proclaimed that is will be short-lived.


How ludicrous?




Bill Oconnor

Leo Comitale (l...@torolab.ibm.com) wrote:
: [I said this:]
: >OS/2 is the disk operating system, i.e. the text-based command prompt; 
: >the Presentation Manager is the GUI.  This is completely analogous to DOS
: >7.0 as the disk operating system and Win95 as the GUI.  Sure, you can't
: >have Win95 without DOS 7.0, but you can't have the OS/2 Presentation
: >Manager without the underlying OS/2 disk operating system either.

: Can you start Windows 95 in text mode and p-multitask any number of 
: protected mode applications from "DOS 7.0"?  If so then your analogy is 
: correct, otherwise it isn't.

Well no, you can't, but the analogy is still 100% correct.  I never said
that MS-DOS 7.0 was as good a dos as OS/2 w/o the PM, but they are both
still the underlying OS for their respective GUI.

: Also I beleive the above poster is refering to MS/PC-DOS(tm), not "disk
: operating system", which is also known as the CP subsystem on OS/2.

Perhaps, but I think a lot of people in this thread are either confused
about the difference or are intentionally blurring it.  That's why I try
to use "MS-DOS" or "DOS 7.0" instead of just "dos".  Heck, *every*
computer ever made has a d.o.s. in one form or another.
-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

In article <3vb4a8$f...@news.iadfw.net>, tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wrote:

>>        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

>Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.
>Just because OS/2 is superior (ie: multi-tasks in command line mode)
>doesn't mean that Win95's command line is DOS. It looks the same, and
>has the same (or similar) file names (as MS-DOS) because the
>programmers over at MS have little imagination (proof is in the fact
>that every complimentable feature in Win95 appeard somewhere else
>first).  Win95's command line is singletasking because MS has the
>attitude of "Who needs to multi-task in command line mode?" --
>Very similar to their "640K? That's more than anyone will EVER need!"
>attitude back in 1982.
>...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 

It *is* DOS. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks, walks like
a duck.. then it is a duck! A single-tasking OS with only a CLI, all
command names the same as DOS, etc. *is* DOS.

>That is like calling Julian Lennon "John Lennon". He looks the same,
>sounds the same, sings the same... 

But there are a few subtle differences. For example, John Lennon was
a lot more popular than Julian. I can't find these subtle differences
in Windows 95. Windows 95 is just a bundle of MS-DOS 6.4 and Windows
3.2

>I agree. OS/2 is a superior product, but the INFERIOR product is not
>as inferior as you make it out to be. Shame that IBM has an inept
>marketing department. Windows 95 will sell millions of copies, it will
>soon become the standard, and IBM will rush behind to be compatable.

Don't be so pessimistic. Windows 95 hasn't proven anything yet, and
in real life hype has much less impact. We're here with a lot of
heatseekers. There are much less heatseekers in real life.

Joris







ATTENTION: If you're reading this article from the Microsoft Network, please
be aware that you are supporting an evil and monopolistic software  company.
Please think about switching to a different provider. Thank you for your co-
operation.
-- 
---------------------------------------All I want is an opportunity to prove
Joris S. Zwart                that money doesn't buy happiness - Joris Zwart
jo...@stack.urc.tue.nl                   http://www.stack.urc.tue.nl/~jozwa/
(PGP public key available by finger)-----------------#include <disclaimer.h>

In <3vbvgq$9...@news4.digex.net> to...@access.digex.net (Tom Krotchko)
writes: 
>
>In article <2qHGwAuL...@source.asset.com>,
ocon...@source.asset.com says...
>
>>        3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
>>            interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
>>            multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
>>            OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and
simple.
>
>Don't forget 4096 colors, and 4 channel sound, too.
              ^^^^

I know anything about OS/2, but I know this cannot be right in any way.
If you mean, 4096 simultaneosly, you are wrong.  If you mean a 4096
color palette, you are wrong.  What do you mean?

>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.

In article <40vl1c$d...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,
jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) wrote:
> >But the DOS part of Win95 is still good old, non-reentrant, real mode,
> >DOS. It will not change however much you would like it to. Without
> >good old 16 bit (who cares about the bitness???), real-mode (this is
> >important, and BAD for DOS), non-reentrant (this is important and BAD
> >for DOS) DOS Windows 95 will not function at all. Not even if you
> >use something else to boot it. Windows 95 needs DOS to run Win32
> >software.
> 
> Hey, I remember you.  Terje Bergesen - OS/2  zealot.
> 
> Hey everybody, don't believe anything that comes out of an OS/2 zealots 
> mouth.  Anybody who hates Microsoft is going to bash everything they 
> make.  When they can communicate well its even more dangerous because 
> they can persuade people to believe in the same false ideas that they do.
> 
> Heres what everbody should do.  Read, the posts of Windows 95 -vs- OS/2 
> but don't believe any of it; for or against Windows 95.  Most of it is 
> well presented bull shit anyway.  Instead, wait until after Windwos 95 
> comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.

No, I have another suggestion. Get Windows 95, then get
the book by Andrew Schulman. Get the one with a CD. On
that CD there are tools that allows you to look into the
things I adress above. See for your selfe. Don't trust
a jerk who is using two paragraphs, and gives NO info
or try in NO WAY to refute what I say.

Just for the record - I use OS/2, NT and Linux, not in
that order always. I like them all. Compared to any of
them, technically, Windows 95 is a piece of junk.


_______________________________________________________________________
Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950822...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> "Mary L. Tod" <mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> writes:
>From: "Mary L. Tod" <mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Win95 a TRUE OS? Help a newbie!
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 08:45:58 -0400

>> > ...back to the original Question:
>> > Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
>> Win'95 is much better than Win3.1/WFWG in all respects, its more stable, 
>> more compatible and a site easier to navigate, plus it still allows you 
>> to run all your old DOS apps as well.
>> | Allen Clarke                                                  
>a...@mround.bt.co.uk|
>> | TEL: 01473-649371                                                        
>|
>> | Fax: 01473-637523         MLB G/35, BT Labs, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, IP5
>7RE|

>Let's go into that last comment a little more.  Does it run the old/slow 
>DOS as well as the new low and high mem intensive DOS well.  For example 
>Battles of Napoleon or the SSG Battlefront/Decisive Battles of the ACW on 
>the low/slow (namely made to run on PCXT or 286) and, say, Panzer General 
>or Stalingrad on the high end.
>           _
>         _/ \_  Calvin Timmerman, "The Old Wargamer" (on wife's id)
>        / \_/ \  - First Wargame: Africa Corps, 1966. Now I let the
>        \_/ \_/    PC roll the dice.





Excuse me - a purist when it comes to newsgroup subjects.

Is it me or do these WIN95 A TRUE OS? threads belong somewhere else?

Now I know most of you other .strategics have tried to conclude this 
perpetual follow-upping (by adding win95 et al to your killfile) but my 
newsreader, provided by MY :) university, does not have this killfile 
feature.  Flame me if I'm wrong, but not by email.  Send flames to 
comp.os.msdos.programmer or so. ;->

And for any of you WIN95-a-TRUE-OS?-Help-a-newbie writers, kindly mind where 
you send your follow-ups and posts.  They REALLY clutter up _*EVERY*_ 
(quadruple capslock) newsgroup, including some like comp.os.msdos.programmer.

And for any of you (am I repeating myself?) .strategics, maybe we should be 
just as bad as they are and start talking about CIV, MOO, MOM on THEIR 
groups... I mean this group is getting quite full anyway; 800 articles pile 
up during the weekend for me to read.

not a sig:   The above paragraph is definitely an implied threat; however, 
if you are a lawyer or a internet-cop or wish to prosecute me for whatever 
reason, the above paragraph somewhat unconventionally DOES represent the 
company I work for, its owner, and my directly responsible employer, all 
these parties as at the writing of this post.

BTW I have no employer at this moment - hahahaha.

In article <40vl1c$d...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU says...
>
>>But the DOS part of Win95 is still good old, non-reentrant, real mode,
>>DOS. It will not change however much you would like it to. Without
>>good old 16 bit (who cares about the bitness???), real-mode (this is
>>important, and BAD for DOS), non-reentrant (this is important and BAD
>>for DOS) DOS Windows 95 will not function at all. Not even if you
>>use something else to boot it. Windows 95 needs DOS to run Win32
>>software.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data

After reading through Andrew Schulman's Unauthorized Windows 95, I see that even 
though Win95 uses DOS (mainly for Int 25 pass-through calls) it uses it in VIRTUAL 
86 mode, which is PROTECTED mode as far as the CPU is concerned, although its 
using 16-bit segments with DPMI paged memory access.  This improves compatibility 
with DOS programs than a straight 32-bit protected mode.  However, the VxD's will 
probably slowly replace the Int 21 calls with 32-bit protected mode calls over 
time.

: Heres what everbody should do.  Read, the posts of Windows 95 -vs- OS/2 
: but don't believe any of it; for or against Windows 95.  Most of it is 
: well presented bull shit anyway.  Instead, wait until after Windwos 95 
: comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.

I believe that an opinion in a respected publication would be a "professional
bull s**t opinion" as opposed to merely a bull s**t one. This implies
that the information given by such an article will certainly have the
likelihood of being MORE biased while appearing more slick by virtue
of being in such a publication. Also, one has to wonder how much
a writer or editor has his opinions influenced when a big company such
as Microsoft is doing tons of business in the form of "adverts". One
would hope that this would make no difference, but in the real world...
I dont think you'll find no connection.

Therefore, I'd rather listen to both technical junkies and presentation
junkies argue over the merits of operating systems and interject my
own views if appropriate. If anything, I would be MORE wary of a professional
magazine review due to possible economic pressures and/or deals.
Plus people have a tendency (sp?) to believe something just because
it is written.

I would prefer to keep in mind that people on the net may have hidden
agendas, too, but that instant usenet feedback and analysis is more
likely to expose biases or logic faults than a big mega review that
one has no public way to respond against (or for).

Dont you feel the same? :) No? 

Lewis
-- 
Lewis Beard   le...@freud.inst.com        http://freud.inst.com/gh/lewis.html
The "Dirty Work" Editor of COAST TO COAST, The Glenn Hughes Electronic Fanzine
To join COAST TO COAST, email me with subject: CTC: subscribe <email address>
The GLENN HUGHES WWW site awaits at:      http://freud.inst.com/gh/

Stephan Siano (ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de) wrote:
: In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
: >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.
: Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
: (Although the DOS is hidden better than before)


Wowser! _hidden_ secrets just like in DooM, win95 looks like a great game..;)
I can't wait for the sequel - "Computing for the Clueless" -

Terje A. Bergesen <ter...@vestnett.no> wrote:
>No, I have another suggestion. Get Windows 95, then get
>the book by Andrew Schulman. Get the one with a CD. On

You left off a step (which probably explains why you get things wrong
when you post): read Schulman's book.

--Tim Smith

Stephan Siano (ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de) wrote:
: In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
: Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
: (Although the DOS is hidden better than before)

Well, I'm not surely that's wholly true.  I think the "Dos" window is 
more of an xterm type program now, since you can run windows programs 
from the command prompt now.

Yeah, DOS is at the core, just like it is in OS/2 and Windows NT.

In article <41m89c$2...@feenix.metronet.com>, pdeu...@metronet.com (Patrick Deupree) writes:

|> Yeah, DOS is at the core, just like it is in OS/2 and Windows NT.

Except that you're wrong about that.  Neither one loads any DOS 
code when not running DOS applications.  DOS is essentially run
as just another type of app under NT and OS/2.

---
 Bob Hauck                              Wasatch Communcations Group
 bo...@wasatch.com                       Data (24 hrs): 801-272-3792

t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) wrote:


>You left off a step (which probably explains why you get things wrong
>when you post): read Schulman's book.

Bad idea. Schulman's book was correct when written. Its got a lot of
errors now due to the changes in 95 subsequent to publication. Not a
knock on Schulman, but things change. Today 95 is much better in all
respects to any OS/2 ever, for example. Not so when the book was
written.

bo...@wasatch.com (Bob Hauck) wrote:

>In article <41m89c$2...@feenix.metronet.com>, pdeu...@metronet.com (Patrick Deupree) writes:

>|> Yeah, DOS is at the core, just like it is in OS/2 and Windows NT.

>Except that you're wrong about that.  Neither one loads any DOS 
>code when not running DOS applications.  DOS is essentially run
>as just another type of app under NT and OS/2.

You're correct about the os/2 part (although I can't comfirm the NT
part since I have never used or seen it). Os/2 uses it's own core, the
OS/2 prompt.

Avan

In article <41qsfr$d...@mack.rt66.com>, Paul Cassel <pca...@rt66.com> wrote:
>t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) wrote:
>
>
>>You left off a step (which probably explains why you get things wrong
>>when you post): read Schulman's book.
>
>Bad idea. Schulman's book was correct when written. Its got a lot of
>errors now due to the changes in 95 subsequent to publication. Not a
>knock on Schulman, but things change. Today 95 is much better in all
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>respects to any OS/2 ever, for example. Not so when the book was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Even PC Rag, er Mag, doesn't buy *THIS* one.  www.ziff.com-->PC Mag,
Cover Story.

>written.
>

Schulman has kept publishing articles, in places like Dr. Dobbs, on
the evolving W95 architecture.  It still isn't that good.  Even Dale
Ross admits that the infamous "fill 0:0 ffff 00"  debug script will
hose the WHOLE system.

Bob

 ***** 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 !.

In article <12...@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, M.A.S...@ukc.ac.uk (Martin Searle) writes:
|> 
|> 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. 

don't expect that version  to multitask any better, it's the design not a bug

 -Mike

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.

pdeu...@metronet.com (Patrick Deupree) writes:
>
> Stephan Siano (ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de) wrote:
> : In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
> : Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
> : (Although the DOS is hidden better than before)
> 
> 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.

Get a clue.

        - Justin

--
            Justin Hawkins -> jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au
               "Don't sweat it, it's only 1's and 0's"

Justin Hawkins <jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au> wrote:
>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.

>Get a clue.

Think again. A lot of the DOS and Windows code in OS/2 is from
Microsoft.

In <jhawkins0245...@tardis.apana.org.au>, Justin Hawkins <jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au> writes:
>Distribution: world
>
>pdeu...@metronet.com (Patrick Deupree) writes:
>>
>> Stephan Siano (ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de) wrote:
>> : In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
>> : Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
>> : (Although the DOS is hidden better than before)
>>
>> 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.

Hmmmm....
Michael Duffy                | HuKt oN FoNiX WuRKt fOr m E!
(mdu...@ionet.net)           |
http://www.ionet.net/~mduffy | Author of "Gearing Up For Games" in EDM/2

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

In article <42rs9f$l...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Andrae Muys <a.m...@mailbox.uq.oz.au> wrote:

>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

I've run about 30 DOS games, some of them fairly picky about setup, under
W95.  Its' DOS seems flawless.  Care to tell us how it is flawed?  I'd
like to know what to avoid, and right now, everything I've tried works.

David Pipes

Yeah, I know a guy who, no matter what he does within the 
context of editing shortcut parameters for a dos session within 
windows, cannot get more than about 500k or less conventional 
memory free. This leaves about 80% of his old dos software 
unusable. Of course, the win95 manual is silent on these types 
of problems. Actually the win95 manual is silent on just about 
everything else to given its paltry size. 

Now, my friends computing requirements preclude going to a 
separate DOS session via the F8 key. Myself, I tend to prefer 
that avenue and therefore, I find that I can configure my 
computer to run most everything. 

The whole point is that Win95 is not a transparent OS that it 
was advertised as. Maybe it can be made to work, but I wonder 
if there wasn't an ulterior motive on Microsofts part in 
choosing to keep people largely in the dark via the "no-manual" 
situation......????

Later....Tim S. 

In article <42v7fq$r...@warp.cris.com>, tstan  <ts...@cris.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I know a guy who, no matter what he does within the 
>context of editing shortcut parameters for a dos session within 
>windows, cannot get more than about 500k or less conventional 
>memory free. This leaves about 80% of his old dos software 
>unusable. Of course, the win95 manual is silent on these types 
>of problems. Actually the win95 manual is silent on just about 
>everything else to given its paltry size. 
>

I get 605K free.    How many legacy drivers is he loading?  I don't
have any.  

Here is my memory config in the dos session (using mem/c):

msdos:  18,144
himem: 1,168
ifshlp: 2,864
setver: 832
4dos:  3,984 (a new version of 4DOS5.51 that supports Win 95 great, try it!)
win:  2,272
vmm32: 3,552
4dos: 2,656 (because it is a dos session)
free memory: 619,616 (605K)

Check his config.sys and autoexec.bat and make sure they aren't loading
useless drivers (like any sort of cache).

>Now, my friends computing requirements preclude going to a 
>separate DOS session via the F8 key. Myself, I tend to prefer 
>that avenue and therefore, I find that I can configure my 
>computer to run most everything. 

This is a good method.  I assume you combine it with multi-config for
different programs (push F8, choose command line only, then choose one
of the choices in the multi-config menu.)

>The whole point is that Win95 is not a transparent OS that it 
>was advertised as. Maybe it can be made to work, but I wonder 
>if there wasn't an ulterior motive on Microsofts part in 
>choosing to keep people largely in the dark via the "no-manual" 
>situation......????

Bad situation,  I laughed at the manual.  The plus pack manual is
slightly bigger than the Windows 95 manual.  If you really need one, you
have to buy one of those 3rd party ones.

>
Steven

In <42v7fq$r...@warp.cris.com> tstan <ts...@cris.com> writes: 
>
<SNIP>
>The whole point is that Win95 is not a transparent OS that it 
>was advertised as. Maybe it can be made to work, but I wonder 
>if there wasn't an ulterior motive on Microsofts part in 
>choosing to keep people largely in the dark via the "no-manual" 
>situation......????

Sure.  So people will go out and buy one or more of the hundreds of
Windows 95 books that are now on stores shelves (of which I'm sure
Microsoft gets some cut).


>Later....Tim S. 
>

______________________________________________________________________
Chris Slaughter - slau...@ix.netcom.com

syd...@skypoint.com (Scott Butler) wrote:

>Justin Hawkins <jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>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.

>>Get a clue.

>Think again. A lot of the DOS and Windows code in OS/2 is from
>Microsoft.

But OS/2 is no longer an MS product. So... "all without an MS product
in sight."

BCNya,
Edward

---------------------------------------
J. Edward Sanchez
je...@tridel.com.ph
edward....@f208.n751.z6.fidonet.org
---------------------------------------

tstan (ts...@cris.com) wrote:
: Yeah, I know a guy who, no matter what he does within the 
: context of editing shortcut parameters for a dos session within 
: windows, cannot get more than about 500k or less conventional 
: memory free. This leaves about 80% of his old dos software 
: unusable. Of course, the win95 manual is silent on these types 
: of problems. Actually the win95 manual is silent on just about 
: everything else to given its paltry size. 
	Tell him to delete all the useless junk in his autoexec.bat and 
config.sys. There is no reason why he should get any less that about 590K 
I would think. Tell him to rename them to config.bak and autoexec.bak and 
see how it goes without them. I have yet to find a program that doesn't 
run - except for 3ds4 and Imagine 3.0 but they had trouble under normal 
dos :)

Adam.

In article <42t6uh$s...@access1.digex.net>,
Robear <rob...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <42rs9f$l...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
>Andrae Muys <a.m...@mailbox.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I've run about 30 DOS games, some of them fairly picky about setup, under
>W95.  Its' DOS seems flawless.  Care to tell us how it is flawed?  I'd
>like to know what to avoid, and right now, everything I've tried works.
>
>David Pipes

How about the sound support?  I have a GUS and an original SB and can't
get *either* of them to work...The GUS drivers for win3.1 don't work for
95, and the soundblaster I can't a squeak or anything out of ;)  THe games
actualy seem okay, i ran warcraft and MOM to name just two under 95, but
without any sort of sound it is disappointing (sound, voice, or music, 
that is!)

-ROb

In article <437n53$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Robert  Dejournett <rob...@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <42t6uh$s...@access1.digex.net>,
>Robear <rob...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>>In article <42rs9f$l...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
>>Andrae Muys <a.m...@mailbox.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>I've run about 30 DOS games, some of them fairly picky about setup, under
>>W95.  Its' DOS seems flawless.  Care to tell us how it is flawed?  I'd
>>like to know what to avoid, and right now, everything I've tried works.
>>
>>David Pipes
>
>How about the sound support?  I have a GUS and an original SB and can't
>get *either* of them to work...The GUS drivers for win3.1 don't work for
>95, and the soundblaster I can't a squeak or anything out of ;)  THe games
>actualy seem okay, i ran warcraft and MOM to name just two under 95, but
>without any sort of sound it is disappointing (sound, voice, or music, 
>that is!)
>
>-ROb
>

My SB16 with Roland worked flawlessly, first time.  Hmmm...  Did you check to
see that it was using the correct drivers, and that they are not conflicting
with each other?

If it loads the GUS drivers first, they probably take up the resources for
the SB16, and hey presto! neither works.  I got mine to work by specifying
the SB16 and the MPU-401, so it can talk to two interfaces at once.

I had two device driver conflicts, and one had the same symptoms - the device
didn't work at all until I removed the conflict.  Take a look.

Good luck,
	David Pipes

Justin Hawkins (jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au) decided to write out:
>pdeu...@metronet.com (Patrick Deupree) writes:
>>
>> Stephan Siano (ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de) wrote:
>> : In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
>> : Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
>> : (Although the DOS is hidden better than before)
>> 
>> 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.

>Get a clue.

>        - Justin

>--
>            Justin Hawkins -> jhaw...@tardis.apana.org.au
>               "Don't sweat it, it's only 1's and 0's"

yep.  just realize, that they use DOS code.  windows uses (still) free, public
domain X-windows code, and they have from the start.
--
******************************************************************************
*        I'd like to be Superman, but you're standing on my cape.            * 
******************************************************************************
* Shane Knapp   *  skk...@cs.buffalo.edu  *  acs...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu   *
*  Oh gee, and my homepage too:  http://armstrong.cs.buffalo.edu/~skknapp    *
******************************************************************************

>>I've run about 30 DOS games, some of them fairly picky about setup, under
>>W95.  Its' DOS seems flawless.  Care to tell us how it is flawed?  I'd
>>like to know what to avoid, and right now, everything I've tried works.

me too!!! ... I've still got heaps of (unfortunately) DOS stuff that I 
need to run.

>How about the sound support?  I have a GUS and an original SB and can't
>get *either* of them to work...The GUS drivers for win3.1 don't work for
>95, and the soundblaster I can't a squeak or anything out of ;) THe >games
>actualy seem okay, i ran warcraft and MOM to name just two under 95, but
>without any sort of sound it is disappointing (sound, voice, or music, 
>that is!)

I've taken out the config.sys and autoexec.bat and it seemed to run a-ok 
(not for wc or mom) but for Trans Tycoon and MW2.  640x480x256 for both 
games seems to run ok too ... which REALLY amazes me!! so far ...