🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug28.103942.19508@newsroom.bsc.no>, izahi@bsc.no (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) writes:
> 
>    Is a 32-bit version of DOS, viable or desirable?
  Yes. maybe.
>    Is it possible to change DOS in a way that all the non-RAM above 640K
> can be moved somewhere else and that DOS can execute in a flat memory model?
  no;  besides if you make a 32 bit DOS it's not going to be DOS
compatible;  thus say adios to 640 k limits.
>    I would like to be able to declare arrays larger than 64KB and be able to
> do 32-bit disk accesses.
  no problem
>    Would it be possible to run 16-bit DOS underneath such engine?
  I sincerely hope so; I love Falcon 3.0.
>    I would not like the added complexity of OS/2 or Windows, just a true
> 32-bit DOS.


Ny understanding is that this is precisely what Microsoft is working
on at this moment.  It's not DOS 6,  but something about a year later;
Comdex Spring/Fall '94.  I believe they are even going to throw in a
Windows kernel for those folks who like linking objects to virtual
unthreaded inanimate frame structures.  Hey, let's talk about this
before MS makes the best guys around here sign an NDA...

If DOS 6 is DOS 5 with a bunch of third-party goodies thrown in;
what is _DOS 7_ ???

Are the guys in Redmond smart enough to realize that there is need
for both a gooey picture thingie _AND_ a DOS-like creature??

Aki.
-- 
/  Phone: 408-662 9664   Fax: 662 9676  |  "Aki" pronounced: Ah-Key. I know  \ 
\  125 Searidge Ct #D, Aptos, CA 95003  |  what I'm doing most of the time.  /