home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
- To: executor@ardi.com
- X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- Kerry Lee High Jr wrote:
- >
- > Robert Moldenhauer (rcmolden@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
- > : In article <199604170141.SAA28165@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>,
- > : dan_g@ix.netcom.com says...
- > : >
- >
- > : >And to say Win95 runs on top of DOS. You don't know much about the
- > : system
- > : >your insulting do you?
- >
- > : It is no insult to speak the truth. Even Microsloth has admitted that
- > : yes Windows 95 is not really that different than Windows 3.11, Dos,
- > : renamed Windows 950.0.0 loads first, then Windows. Windows 95 is a
- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- > : nice upgrade and bug fix for Windows 3.11, that's it.
- >
- > Where did you get that? The only places I could find DOS (IO.SYS and
- > COMMAND.COM) calling itself anything called it Windows 95 and MS-DOS 7
- > (inside IO.SYS)
- >
- > Mow, If only I could figure out how to replace MS-DOS 7 with PC-DOS 7...
- >
- > -Kerry High
- > khigh01@umr.edu
-
- There is a very popular book by a man named Shulman, that states that
- Windows 95 NEEDS to be running on top of DOS in order to maintain
- compatibility with older applications.
-
- Windows 95 is a hybrid 16/32 bit operating system, in order to maintain
- Windows 3.1 compatibility. It does have LOTS of great new features, is
- much slicker and easier to use. It's also much more stable (when you use
- 32-bit applications).
-
- However, if Windows 95 were fully 32-bit, it would be Windows NT 4.0...
-
- - Al Hartman -
-
-
- "funny... no matter I am.. I'm always right here!"
-
-
-
-