🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3da67g$dli@newsserver.trl.OZ.AU> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>In article <3d7nnt$oos$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> hitman@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (The Hitman) writes:
>>
>>Yes Windows 95 is stand alone in a sense. Microsoft have combined all
>>of DOS into one file basically speaking. So when the system starts it
>>is similar to NT. Everything loads from Win 95. Reason.... so that everything
>>loads above the 1Mb barrier, no more 640K base nightmares etc etc.
>
>Does this mean that the first meg of ram is wasted by Windoze95?, everything
>being loaded above that barrier.
>
>On a similar vane.... Will Windoze95 require me to open a window in order
>to run a DOS shell? In other words, will Windoze95 be as hard to
>program as MacOS?
>
>thanks
>DJ...
>
no, the 1st meg isn't wasted.
a dos window can be opened exactly like it is currently opened. you click
on the ``command'' button whatever it happens to be named & you've a dos
shell.

no, windows 95 is not stand alone. it loads in a very similar fashion
to dos + windows now, only somewhat more transparently.
the `one file' mentioned above is msdos.sys + io.sys combined.

i think config.sys is still used for loading the 16 bit drivers, which
still reside under 1M and are thunked into use under 32 bits.

dos 7 is little more than dos 5 (oh, sorry, 6) compiled for 32 bits.
it does NOT support NTFS, which i find absolutly bizarre. it does
support long filenames, but in an undocumented way, similar to OS/2
(surprise).

not to bash m/s, because i think some of the new interface features
are pretty nice, but i still prefer warp because it does DOS better.
one ALWAYS gets a window > 600K when at the dos prompt, unlike
chicago

--kyle