On 12 Sep 00 at 12:16, Neil Parks wrote:
>>The EDIT.COM that came with all flavors of MS-DOS 6.x is the same. It's
>>just a shortcut to the QBASICC editor which is what does the work.
>>
>>It is slow and cumbersome, and works on only one file at a time. (If you
>>It works in MS-DOS 6.2 very ni
On 8 Sep 00 at 0:39, arachne-digest wrote:
> From: "Neil Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The disadvantage of EDIT.COM is that it cannot function all by itself as a
> "stand-alone", because it requires QBASIC in order to work.
> However, win95 edit.com weighs in much less, and I have no Q
Hi All,
Date sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Hildenbrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Edit VS Pico (stiring up hornets nest)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Download Lineo/Caldera Dr-DOS 7.03 from www.drdos.org . Switch into pure
>> ms-dos 7 and type install.
>> I automaticly install a bootmanager: LOADER.
>
>> Then you can switch at the beginning between Dr-DOS and Win9x.
>
>OK, Thanks.
>
>Questions: Will I also have the option of selecting the v
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:21:46 +0200, Florian Xaver wrote:
>> Is it possible to install an alternative DOS in addition to the existing
>> DOS version in a Windows 95 machine so that Windows will think it is
>> a "previous" version of DOS so that you can have an option to boot to the
>> "previous" ve
>Is it possible to install an alternative DOS in addition to the existing
>DOS version in a Windows 95 machine so that Windows will think it is
>a "previous" version of DOS so that you can have an option to boot to the
>"previous" version of DOS?
>
>In this case the alternative version of DOS is n
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:50:57 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> "Samuel W Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SH> I do know that Windows 3.1 isn't persnickity about what version of
> SH> DOS you are running, but Windows 95 wants only its own version. Even
> SH> thou
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> My question concerns whether this is "real DOS" or just a version of
SH> it having strains of something else besides.
real :)
SH> I have read somewhere that if you try to install an alternative
SH> version of DOS, such as Caldera DR-DOS,
Hi All,
Just and additional note that I haven't
seen mentioned precisely. As far as I can figure
when one "exits" Win95, a screen comes up that
says something like "it is now safe to turn off
your computer". When this screen comes up the
system has been returned to DOS. You don't have
t
Hello Glenn:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:53:47 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:20:57 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
Of course I already know about all the features described in your post
about the version of DOS that comes included with WIN95. My question
concerns whether
This may have already been covered (I am a little behind in my reading),
but after you finish editing the msdos.sys file, MAKE SURE YOU RETURN ITS
ATTRIBUTES TO WHAT IT WAS. If you don't and you try to "boot to previous
dos version" it will trash the msdos.sys and you will not be able to boot
at
Or,
I'd be interested in your batch file that makes the shut down of
Win95 easier. Also, when you go to shut down Win95, it only gives four
options. The one I'm interested in is the one that says restart in msdos
mode. I know for certain there is something left of the Win95 code in
memo
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:20:57 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> My version of DOS 7.00 came provided with WIN95. Is it possible to load
> DOS 7.00 without installing some components of WIN95? I don't know about
> this.
W95 is exactly the same as W3.1 in the respect that it is a
GUI/operating
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:27:22 -0500
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>EDIT.COM has much better features than PICO, IMHO.
Tru, you'll hear no argument from me!
> The disadvantage of EDIT.COM is that it cannot function all by itself as a
"stand-alone", because it requires QBASIC in ord
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> There are no Windows programs that can be run in a stand-alone mode.
>> That Edit is not a Windows program. Try for yourself. Pure DOS.
SH> My version of DOS 7.00 came provided with WIN95.
SH> Is it possible to load DOS 7.00 without ins
Hey, Ive run edit.com on a completely clean system that has nothing
other than the command interpreter on it and edit.com (etc..)
At 07:18 AM 9/7/00 +0200, you wrote:
>> There are no Windows programs that can be run in a "stand-alone" mode.
>
>That Edit is not a Windows program. Try for yourself
Well, just to explain, this is how I work:
"Pure DOS" is a DOS that you access without Windows in the background
(that is, not a "command.com season" or "dos box" or whatever.)
Pure DOS is when you load DOS.. and thats it. :)
Regarding windows 95, yep. it a DOS program. Remember when 3.11 used
t
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 07:18:19 +0200, Or Botton wrote:
>> There are no Windows programs that can be run in a "stand-alone" mode.
> That Edit is not a Windows program. Try for yourself.
> Pure DOS.
My version of DOS 7.00 came provided with WIN95. Is it possible to load
DOS 7.00 without installing
> There are no Windows programs that can be run in a "stand-alone" mode.
That Edit is not a Windows program. Try for yourself.
Pure DOS.
Or Botton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Truth is stranger then fiction, since fiction has t
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 06:09:07 +0200, Or Botton wrote:
> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> EDIT.COM is not a "stand-alone" DOS text editor. It requires QBASIC and it
>> must load QBASIC into memory in order to work. PICO may be used as a
>> "stand-alone" program.
> Starting from MS-DOS 7 (or Windows 9
> > File sizes for comparison :
> > Win 95 version of Edit69886 bytes,
> > Pico 194284 bytes.
> pico (Slackware 3.5) 128504 bytes.
Wow!!! I just found a Linux editor which has more
features than pico, uses standard Wordstar control
keys and is completely self-conta
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> EDIT.COM is not a "stand-alone" DOS text editor. It requires QBASIC and it
> must load QBASIC into memory in order to work. PICO may be used as a
> "stand-alone" program.
Starting from MS-DOS 7 (or Windows 95, whatever you choose to call it),
Edit is completly stand-a
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:53:01 +0100, Neil Smith wrote:
> Edit came with Qbasic as external editor. I didna know that, always wondered
> why qbasic was still included in MSDos.
EDIT.COM is not a "stand-alone" DOS text editor. It requires QBASIC and it
must load QBASIC into memory in order to work.
Neil Smith wrote:
>
> File sizes for comparison :
> Win 95 version of Edit69886 bytes,
> Pico 194284 bytes.
pico (Slackware 3.5) 128504 bytes.
This is the full pico, so I don't know why yours
is 50% bigger.
> Win95 Edit.com is a bargain at half the price. ;-)
Edit came with Qbasic as external editor. I didna know that, always wondered
why qbasic was still included in MSDos.
Just for comparison then, PICO comes as the built-in editor with the
text-based Linux email software PINE, and is similarly equipped to perform
basic editing stand-alone. In common
25 matches
Mail list logo
