Howard S. wrote:
>I believe windows 95 and 98 still run on top of a real DOS, whereas later
>versions simulate dos to run dos programs. Is this correct?
Not really ;-)
Windows 4.x still runs on DOS (Windows 4.x is also known as Chicago, Kairo,
Windows 94, 95, 95OSR2.1, 95OSR2.5, 98, 98SE and Me - I think that are all
the versions) they are all somewhat semi-compatible but not everything
works with all versions.
Windows NT was partially made from OS/2 and doesn't run DOS but have a
lousy emulator - it can't even run the simplest BATch file correct
(versions are NT 3.51, NT 4 and 2000)
Depending on the version you are refering to the answer is no (4.x) or yes
(NT).
I don't know about Whistler, I think it's meant to be the cross-over to NT
(just as Me, 98... you saw the list a few lines up... was supposed to).
>More important, is the dos 7 (equivalent I assume to a version of
>command.com and the files io.sys and msdos.sys) that comes with
>win 95 and 98 really capable of running 99% of the programs written for
>Dos versions 6X and earlier? I have heard that DOS 7 can not, in fact,
>run various ``real'' dos programs, but I do not know how extsensive the
>problem is.
I haven't come across any problem, but I haven't tested many programs.
>If Dos 7 is not adequate, I would need to create a separate partition
>for my dos 6.22 with all the programs I have come to depend on and
>enjoy.
Why a new partition? Agreed it would be somewhat faster but depending on if
you do it often a floppy disk will do (as long as you use FAT16 that is on
the HD).
//Bernie
