From: leathm AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au (Leath Muller)
Message-Id: <199709142320.JAA09381@solwarra.gbrmpa.gov.au>
Subject: Re: 32bit DOS.
To: dj AT delorie DOT com (DJ Delorie)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:20:54 +1000 (EST)
Cc: baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <199709121403.KAA19349@delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Sep 12, 97 10:03:45 am
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk

> Of course!  32-bit mode without protection (well, unless you ask for
> it) - full hardware access!  That's what DOS *is*.
 
> The idea is that the OS is 32-bit, and it creates a V86 box in which
> it provides a compatible 16-bit API, so that it can run 16-bit
> programs.  However, the OS, being in flat memory, can include DPMI,
> cache, CD-ROM, etc without taking up conventional memory, and it would
> just "know" about other types of executables.
 
Sorry if this sounds kind of, ummm, hmmm, negative... ;)  But isn't this
Win95 without the GUI? More specifically, Win95 doesn't give you all the
access to the hardware that you would like as it has protection for this.
But it is possible. So what is the difference between Win95's DOS prompt
and your 32-bit DOS?

This is talking very generally so before you guys flame me to death:
i)   I am all for a 32-bit DOS
ii)  I would like to help, although time is kinda limited... :(
iii) I know the advantages include a much smaller 'core' memory requirement. :)
iv)  etc

I am just playing 'devils advocate'... :)  And who is going to write the
GUI? Is there going to be a GUI? I would like a 32-bit DOS w/ an optional
GUI so I can run nice big DOS prompts... I like vi... :)

Leathal.