🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ckno01-0408951641340001@uglq6.cs.auckland.ac.nz> ckno01@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Craig Knox) writes:

>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.

In Win95, there is no MSDOS.SYS file.  WINBOOT.SYS combines MSDOS.SYS and 
IO.SYS into one file (strangely enough tho, it's still listed as MSDOS in the 
MEM command).  Although it does have features that suggest it's still loading 
100% DOS before loading the GUI, it's not. "MS-DOS 7.0" has changes made 
underneath the surface. Try installing a copy of Windows 3.x and running it 
under MS-DOS 7, it won't run.

>>  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!

I didn't say it did. I put the command name in quotes, referring to it as THEY 
refer to it.

>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!

DOS-like components are a major portion of Win95. The ONLY reason it's like 
that is for compatibility. I believe no matter WHAT you do, no GUI will ever 
be able to be as powerful as a command-line interface running on the same 
computer. Even with Win NT, I can't run DOOM under WinNT because of the direct 
hardware access, but if I boot MS-DOS instead of NT, it runs fine.  Win95, 
DOOM doesn't run well under the GUI, but I unload the GUI and it runs fine. 
Sure, DOOM is just a game, but many serious applications are under the same 
constraints. (Try running INTERSVR.EXE under Win95)

>> >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.

Is that a bad thing tho? Would you rather face an unknown devil or one you 
know?

>> >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.

There is a difference, slightly. The operation of Win95 looks like the command 
"WIN.COM" is hidden at the end of the AUTOEXEC.BAT... if you break out of a 
normal bootup before it finishes the AUTOEXEC.BAT, it won't load Win95.

>> 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?

Uhhh... DOS?