In a message dated 1/22/03 6:59:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
> This is probably due to the fact that both Win 95/98 both use a different
> style of FAT (File Allocation Table) than NT which uses NTFS. NT is closer
> to a UNIX based OS than DOS based and is more stable. It is good to hear
Actually, it is the way NT allows access to the system peripherals. NT
is supposed to simulate what called "protective mode" operations. If
an app fails, theoretically, the OS won't crash (but it still does).
In running this way, NT drivers were VERY specific and kludgy. That's
why very few
on 1/22/03 6:37 AM, J Sand at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Well, my 640CD DOS runs Win95 fine, and would likely run 98. Haven't tried
>> NT.
>>
>> Using PCSetup, Win98 is supposed to be supported. NT never will be.
>>
>
> This is probably due to the fact that both Win 95/98 both use a d
Just replaced a Performa 550 Mobo with a LC 575 in Mom's Color Classic.
Seems the 575 has a few more options than I initially thought, & one
drawback, the backplate. Your Quad info section listed MicroMac as source
for a conversion plate. Anyone know of others?
Now the memory for LC 575 is ver
>Well, my 640CD DOS runs Win95 fine, and would likely run 98. Haven't tried
>NT.
> >>
>
>Using PCSetup, Win98 is supposed to be supported. NT never will be.
>
This is probably due to the fact that both Win 95/98 both use a different
style of FAT (File Allocation Table) than NT which uses NTFS.
>Negatory!
>
>DOS and Windows run better, and more reliably, on a MAC, than on a
>gen-u-wine
>PC.
>
>Seriously!
>
That changes my opinion of the DOS card from being a novelty. I assume it
has something to do with how the instruction set is being used in the 680X0
style of CPU chip being more st
