Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <19971031144339152254@slip129-37-106-71.wa.us.ibm.net>,
B.J. Major <bjblackbear@ibm.net> wrote:
>Not that I've seen it hasn't.  And, Windows 95 also has DOS running
>underneath it as well.  Just because something has been made practically
>invisible does not mean it is not there.  Unless/until the architecture
>of the PC changes in the future, DOS will *always* be there, underneath
>everything.

   This is the 90s. NT does not use DOS underneath now, and never will.
Been available since, oh, 93 or 94. 

>Where did I claim this, *exactly*????   This is a sentence you
>fabricated to draw me into yet another argument.  Neither PC or Mac
>(with the current Mac OS) does *true* multitasking.  

   Look, as long as you KEEP making these nonsensical claims that have
nothing to do with reality, you will keep *starting* all these
arguments and flames. And you deserve all of the pain you get for not
thinking before posting.

   WinNT has protected memory and full preemptive (i.e. 'true')
multitasking. So does Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris x86, and a whole
bunch more OSs. [In fact, there were even preemptive multitasking
environments for DOS last time I checked, also yet another argument
from someone who just does not know hardware or software, it seems.]
My personal PCs (386s thru pentiums) run Linux just great; I have had
no inclination to play around with all of the other real OSs. Thus,
your statement about "PCs don't do true multitasking" above is pure
bull. Just because you may not have them installed on your personal
machine(s) doesn't mean they don't exist.

   Please pull off the blinders and think before posting. It'll save
everyone lots of trouble having to correct your faults.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# This posting is copyright Nathan Mates, and may not be reprinted
# in full, partial, or quoted form on any archive site associated with
# Charles Turley.