Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 324627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: I can't imagine saying "oh, wow!" about
by Rugxulo on Fri 25th Jul 2008 22:42
in reply to "RE[4]: I can't imagine saying "oh, wow!" about"
"I used Windows 3.1 as a nice app-launcher (it did pretty well with DOS apps).
I dont know what Windows 3.1x you used by the one I and everyone else I know used sucked pretty badly as a DOS-app frontend. That's one thing Win9x was actually better at.
"
Win 3.x was a big deal at the time, but of course in hindsight had some limitations. However, compared to no multitasking at all, it was good. However, you could always use DESQview or OS/2 instead, depending on how much you wanted to spend. WinNT was more stable, though, than Win9x (although less DOS compatible).
"C'mon back, Dos!! Only with long filenames, pre-emptive mulit-tasking, better memory management.
We already have that. It's called Unix. "
No, we have DOSEMU + FreeDOS and DOSBox. Now if only the big distros would include 'em! For LFN and memory in native FreeDOS, use DOSLFN and JEMMEX (or just use DPMI apps, which usually can overcome any limitations).
(... gets back to helping FreeDOS 1.1 to be eventually released ...)
Edited 2008-07-25 22:43 UTC
RE[6]: I can't imagine saying "oh, wow!" about
by Soulbender on Tue 29th Jul 2008 05:38
in reply to "RE[5]: I can't imagine saying "oh, wow!" about"




Member since:
2005-08-18
I dont know wjat Windows 3.1x you used by the one I and everyone else I know used sucked pretty badly as a DOS-app frontend. That's one thing Win9x was actually better at.
We already have that. It's called Unix.