🚀 go-pugleaf

> >shell loaded up from Dos            | Same.
>  Note: Depends what you call "Dos". Win95 only loads as much of DOS as
it needs
>  to stay compatible with DOS and Win3. If you don't have a CONFIG.SYS or
>  AUTOEXEC.BAT, it'll only load WINBOOT.SYS before Windows loads.

DOS is DOS, try editing your msdos.sys and put bootGUI=0, it'll load
straight to DOS.  Then type "win", it loads up windows.  In other words,
win95 DOS program loaded from DOS.  You can load DOS without having a
config.sys or autoexec.bat file.  Config.sys and autoexec.bat don't make
DOS.  Also try running something like MSD, its will say you are running
MS-DOS 7, which you are.

>  Note: Not true. If you "Restart computer in MS-DOS mode", and MEM/C, you'll 
>  see that WIN.COM is still loaded in memory. True, it's doing nothing but it's
>  still there to reboot when you type "EXIT".

<bangs head violently against wall> Yes, the old "Restart computer in
MS-DOS mode" it *really* restarts your computer doesn't it??  I don't
think so!  If you actually thought before writing the above, you would
have realised all that "Rot" did was shutdown windows, same thing as
shutting down Win3.1x, and you end up back at DOS, where you started. The
only difference is it still leaves some junk in the memory so you can type
exit to get back windows.  If you try what I told you in the last
paragraph, ie starting from dos then loading up win95, you will quickly
see its the same.  Trying deny that win95 runs from DOS-7 is like trying
to say the water isn't wet!

> >can run 32bit programs              | Same, (with Win32s)
>  Note: This is true, in fact, a LARGE portion of the 32bit code in Win95 is
>  directly copied from Win32s

Most of what I have said is true.

> >Multiple boot to old version of DOS | No multiboot to old DOS.
>  Note: With Win3, you don't NEED a multiboot.

Note: neither do you with Win95, just press F8, or edit your msdos.sys and
you go to DOS without loading up win95.  All I was saying is that was a
difference.

> Sometimes I think that people are too critical of Microsoft over Win95. Sure, 
> they've made some claims that aren't true, but given the restrictions that 
> were placed on them, Win95 is actually GOOD.  They sacrificed a LOT of 
> performance in making it very DOS compatible. 

Of *COURSE* its "very DOS compatible" it runs from DOS doesn't it?  How
much more compatible with DOS can you get?