Re: MS-DOS??

From: Bruce Chambers (bchambers_at_nospamcableone.net)
Date: 02/09/04 

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 16:17:02 -0700

Greetings --

    I'll place your suggestions under consideration. And I'll avoid
any mention of WinMe, particularly since I don't recall ever having
seen a computer running it.

Bruce Chambers 

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace.  Or you can have freedom.  Don't ever count on 
having both at once. -- RAH
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message 
news:j2cd201dhu1lpc1vhrmkd47u93q168a933@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:47:01 -0700, "Bruce Chambers"
>
>>Greetings --
>
> Hi!
>
>>    So, how would you suggest I phrase it to keep it both simple for
>>the prospective posters, and technically accurate enough to satisfy
>>you?  ;-}
>
> <swimmy back-in-time effect>
>
>>    WinXP, like its predecessors WinNT & Win2K, is a pure 32-bit GUI
>>OS, and does not include or "ride upon" any version of DOS, as did
>>Win3.x & Win9x/Me.
>
> </swimmy back-in-time effect>
>
> !     WinXP, like its predecessors WinNT & Win2K, is a pure 32-bit 
> GUI
> !  OS, and does not run on DOS, as did Win3.x, or include a DOS 
> mode,
> !  as did Win9x.
>
> Keeping it as general as "Win9x" saves you from having to dance 
> around
> the sordid details of WinME   :-)
>
> I guess you could avoid the Charles Dickens blues (strings of
> comma-delimited phrases; sometimes he can be worse than C function
> calls in that respect) by (parenthesis), as in...
>
> !     WinXP, like its predecessors WinNT & Win2K, is a pure 32-bit 
> GUI
> !  OS, and does not run on DOS (as did Win3.x) or include a DOS mode
> !  (as did Win9x).
>
> Win3.yuk and Win9x in the same breath!  Ewwww!
>
>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -
>    Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -