🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <!00mmbb.messina@netcom.com> messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>I have a string feeling you are confused.  4DOS is not a replacement of
>MSDOS, it is a complement of it, just like COMMAND.COM is, of which it
>is a replacement.  It has all the functionality and compatibility with
>it, but adds some features which enhance _MSDOS_.  It does not require
>any more hardware or any different hardware.

>I found your reply to be either uninformed (despite your being a keeper
>of garbo.uwasa) or misinforming.

Nah, I am not ignorant in this one, even if I readily admit to that
in many other cases.  My reply was meant playful if anything, to the
diversion created.  If we wish to start calling names, perhaps the
best description is to call 4DOS an alternative command interpreter. 
Even so it does not alter the fact that suggesting changing the
command interpreter is just a wee bit heavier solution to the
original problem than what I had in mind :-). 

The funny side of it is that it is almost predestined that when an
MsDos problem is posed some dedicated soul suggests using 4DOS. 
(Which, I repeat, is an impressive and useful interpreter, but that
still is beside the original question). 

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland