Subj : Synchronet can maybe...?
To   : Ralph Smole
From : Time Warrior
Date : Tue Jul 19 2005 05:39 pm

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

  To: Ralph Smole
  Re: Synchronet can maybe...?
  By: Ralph Smole to Time Warrior on Tue Jul 19 2005 04:39 pm

 > To: Time Warrior
 > Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Time Warrior to Finnigann on Tue Jul
 > 19 2005 07:54 am

 >  >  >  >  >  >  > OSX is just a window manager running on top of freeBSD.

 >  >  >  >  >  > yup!  and windowsXP is just a copy of Dosshell running on msd

 >  >  >  >  > Dos 7.0, actually <G>

 > Yeah, and my computer is actually running on top of an abacus which runs on
 > of 8 fingers,2 thumbs and 10 toes.

If you say so. However as i've already said... Dos 6.22 could not support 
long filenames. Only 8.3 filenames. So Dos 7.0 was needed.

Seeing as you've proven you're not all too bright, heres some other details 
to clarify my point:

http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000481.htm
http://www.ctyme.com/msdos7.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

Windows 95 through ME needed Dos 7, Dos 8, etc... now some say the NT Kernel 
isn't built on top of Dos and others say it is. No *real* way to prove it and 
i'm sure it's not something M$ would be too quick to admit. However, if NT is 
not loaded on top of DOS, then how come autoexec.bat and config.sys were not 
removed, but instead, hidden in the Windows directory and changed to 
autoexec.nt and config.nt? :-)

-- 
 .---------------------------------------------------------------.
| [TiME WaRRiOR] aka [Dave Kelso] AIM: Twar782 | +o Malkavia BBS |
| www : synchsupport.net - malkaviabbs.com - xpresit.net         |
| www$: josephsjewelersonline.com - preferedinsurance.com        |
|    @: time.warrior@malkaviabbs. com                            |
 \______________________________________________________________/
--- Synchronet 3.12a-Win32 NewsLink 1.76
 *  Malkavia - Chicago, IL - telnet://malkaviabbs.com
--- Synchronet 3.12b-Win32 NewsLink 1.83

.