> To me, this is a very interesting part of the article. We have recently > seen a thread here about chasing MS-DOS compatibility. One side of the > argument says that we should not be satisfied until we have implemented > every quirk/feature of MS-DOS. Another side argues that as long as DOS > applications that people use today work (for example, games and embedded > systems) then we have done our job; we can implement any broken/missing > stuff as it is discovered.
for me the answer is simple. Bart and Tom belong to 'the other side'. and if someone want Windows 3.1 compatibility, be better starts his code editor rather then his email client. everything about win3.1 compatibility that's worth saying has been said - a couple of times. now either code - or shut up. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
