Re: Dual Boot {was DOS Emulator}

["J. R. Fox" jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

Robert Holmgren wrote:

> Except for a couple of things: It's a pain in the neck. There's no

> simultaneity or concurrence. If you have apps you like that run exclusively on
> one OpSys or another, you gotta go through this whole megillah to access "the
> other one". You've got lousy compromises with file systems (yes, Henk Kelder's
> FAT32 works reliably, but it's slooooow; and PINBALL.SYS barfs if the physical
> disk is more than 8 gig; and Ext2 is clunky outside *nix).

Can't really argue with you there. It helps that I only boot to W2K infrequently,
and keep data files that must have a common access in shared (FAT-16) partitions.

> I've dual/triple/quadruple-booted ever since there was an alternative to DOS,
> and I'm incessantly going back and forth. It sucks. Someday I'm gonna get VPC.

I have seen some **truly impressive** demos of VPC, their latest version. You would
still want fast iron and plenty of memory, in order to maximize its performance.
However, there is some small risk that VPC can open the door to certain WIN-nasties
that otherwise can't successfully do anything to your OS/2 or 'Nix based bootup.

> P.S. Jordan! Would you pleeeeze str-e-e-e-t-c-h your Mozilla composition
> winodw to match or exceed the size of your line wrap spec? Every post has
> short wraps -- and it ain't us, it's you! The wraps are hard in the POP files
> you send.

First of all, I'm still composing in NS 4.61. (Yecch, I know . . . . ) The set
line wrap is currently set for 70. I've tried higher to fix this problem, I've
tried lower. So far, results have been very sporadic and unpredictable. In
composing this reply, I've stretched the window to Cinemascope proportions. Still,
based on past results, I wouldn't bet you 5 centimes that the outcome will turn out
any better.

Jordan