🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v6o3j$j...@mark.ucdavis.edu> szsc...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Charles Schaffer) writes:

[snip]

>>No doubt... Its like all these OS/2 fanatics are saying:
>>
>>"Oh my GOD WIndows 95 has a Disk Operating Sytem underneath it's GUI!!
>>How can that be any good??!"
>>
>>Which of course is rediculous, a "D.O.S." is neccessary in any OS, and
>>just because the underlying D.O.S. happens to be called, and resemble
>>in some ways the copywritten DOS doesn't mean its not as good as
>>anything else..
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>Actually Dos is not necessary for os/2 I can install os/2 without dos
>(note: os/2 command line is not the same as dos). I can boot to os/2.
>Have you ever tried installing win95 without dos on your computer already.
>You can't but you can with os2. 

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.  DOS need not be on
you computer to load Windows 95.  I have an old notebook computer with a
60 MB hard drive (i.e., not much space) so I FDISK it and format it with
Windows 95 to install the thing.  I use the installation disk from the
Windows 95 diskette set to accomplish that and it's just fine.  (And the
Doublespaced drive, after the installation of Procomm 2, Word 6, Word
Perfect 5.1 for DOS and a few other utilities has about 12 MB left).