Subj : Synchronet can maybe...?
To   : Time Warrior
From : Digital Man
Date : Tue Jul 19 2005 07:05 pm

  Re: Synchronet can maybe...?
  By: Time Warrior to Khelms on Tue Jul 19 2005 06:37 am

 >  >  > From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet
 > 
 >  >  > To: Darkytoo Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Darkytoo to Khelms
 >  >  > on Sat Jul 16 2005 01:23 am
 > 
 >  >  >  >  > OSX is just a window manager running on top of freeBSD.
 > 
 >  >  >  > yup!  and windowsXP is just a copy of Dosshell running on msdos 6.2
 > 
 >  >  > Dos 7.0, actually <G>
 > 
 >  > I don't quite know how to take that?  Could it be *SARCASISM*?
 > 
 > It's a fact, actually. Dos 6.22 does not support "long filenames" only the
 > 8.3 format names. Dos 7.0 (cmd.exe) supports them where as 6.22 (command.com
 > does not. In order for Windows to support long file names this was nessesary
 > for Micro$haft to do.

cmd.exe (the command processor included in Windows NT operating systems) is
*not* DOS 7.0. It's a native 32-bit command processor which, other than
command-line syntax compatibility, has nothing to do with DOS.

The only Microsoft "DOS 7.0" you could claim would be the "safe mode
command-line only" boot of Windows 9x/Me (or booting to a command-line with a
Windows 9x/Me startup disk). This of course uses command.com for a command
processor (not cmd.exe).

                                                  digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #88:
A ten gallon hat holds less then one gallon of liquid.

.