Re: denial of access

["R Tennenbaum"]

Peter Evans wrote:

>In Windows 4.0 (aka Win95), and presumably also in Windows 4.1 or whatever
>Win98 really is (I haven't used it), "access denied" doesn't mean that what
>you're trying to access can't be found (e.g. because it's off the PATH).
>It means that the OS is, usually for a good reason, denying you
>access--typically (always?) because you're attempting to open with one
>program a file that you already have open with another program.

Well for our sake I hope you're correct. Michael will tell us whether
he's trying to call up a file that's already in use. However I wonder
if this is related to the issue raised recently related to W95's
reluctance to spawn one DOS session from another. If not, great. But
it's becoming clear that one of the of the Windows way of doing things
is to render much of what's potentially useful in a multitasking x86
environment undoable with DOS apps, as opposed to 32-bit Windows
applications. Since things like MS Office elements interact with one
another "seamlessly" a reasonable person can only conclude that MS is
intent upon making sure that DOS applications can't cross-pollinate
with eg, the use of cool xpl macros. For reasons which to me seem
obvious.

This, along with what I take is the gradual phasing out of DOS
emulation under Windows altogether, doesn't bode well -- for any of us.

Some here are happy using OS/2 -- which makes trivial work of these
sorts of things, and really, should it be anything but trivial? -- but
few of us are encouraged by IBM's non-support. OS/2 is apparently Y2k
(apparently Xy4 isn't -- eh, Mr. Frank?) and personally I'm more than
content with it, and don't need all the things that turn a computer
into a TV set. But these developments should be worrisome for all of
us.

The question remains: anyone using Xywrite under Linux DOS emulation?

--Rafe Tennenbaum
raphaelt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ray-field.com