From: afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: OpenDOS
Date: 30 Jan 1997 03:27:49 GMT
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <5cp4fl$evh@huron.eel.ufl.edu>
References: <199701281236 DOT HAA40563 AT freenet3 DOT freenet DOT ufl DOT edu>
 <01bc0d8f$35e648a0$0f02000a AT weiqigao>
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.afn.org
NNTP-Posting-User: afn03257
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

"Weiqi Gao" <weiqigao AT crl DOT com> wrote:
>Daniel P Hudson <afn03257 AT afn DOT org> wrote in article
><199701281236 DOT HAA40563 AT freenet3 DOT freenet DOT ufl DOT edu>...

>>Gene Buckle <geneb AT web DOT wa DOT net> wrote:

>>Might be possible, but he made it sound liek the OS would blow up the
>>computer if it wasn't MS-DOS, all it does is warn, and truth be known,
>>DR. DOS was never 100% MS-DOS compatable so the warning was called
for.
>>I never ran across any probelms under windows, but I only use windows,
>>to this day, for filmanager and Works.

>The warning messages were not as innocent as you think they are.  It
>was aimed at a competiters product, and it was wrong, period.

 No, it was that harmless. It said, clear as day, your OS is not
 MS-DOS, ergo we do not guarentee windows will run as stated, you need 
 to ensure it is 100% MSDOS compatable. That sums it up to a T.
 Now, guess what? Some DOS's were not 100% MS-DOS compatable even though
 they claimed it. Novell DOS was never fully MS-DOS compatable, yet it 
 said it was on the box. That, IMHO, is wrong and deserved a law suit,
 but it never happened. You see while warning someone isn't against the 
 law, false advertising is. How come this injustice isn't in the daily
 discussion of usenet? Justice hasn't been served yet. Hmm, seems your
 theory is a little weak Weiqi.