🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4237@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> kaleb@mars.UUCP (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
$In article <141@qmsseq.imagen.com> pipkins@imagen.com (Jeff Pipkins) writes:
$>In MS-DOS versions < 3.0, the EXEC function call (EXE loader) was actually
$>a part of COMMAND.COM.  Because COMMAND.COM is not loaded until after
$>CONFIG.SYS is processed, device drivers could not be in .EXE format.
$>(incidently, that is also why it's COMMAND.COM instead of COMMAND.EXE)
$Wrong!  I just whipped out the M'soft Encyclopedia, and the EXEC function
$call has been there all along.  Maybe you're thinking of that short lived
$abortion known as DOS 1.0.

   He didn't say it didn't exist, just that it was part of COMMAND.COM.
Depending on whose DOS (IBM/Microsoft/other), the version in which it was
moved from COMMAND.COM to MSDOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM may vary, but it _did_
originally exist in COMMAND.COM.

   From _Advanced MS-DOS_ (Ray Duncan, Microsoft Press, first edition):

	In addition, EXE-format drivers cannot be used with the IBM
	PC, since the EXE loader is located in COMMAND.COM ...

   That's from the section on installable device drivers, which are a
feature that came in with version 2.0, implying that at least some
2.0-and-higher DOS versions/flavours work that way.
-- 
   /Nikebo \ Nikebo says "Nikebo knows how to post.  Just do it."\silver@xrtll/
  /---------\_____________________________________________________\----------/
 /yunexus!xrtll!silver (L, not 1)\ Hi Ho Silver \   just silver for short   /
/Silver:  Ever Searching for SNTF \  Life sucks. \  someone buy me a BEER! /