> still the point is as you shared yourself, "might be understood " to mean > older stand alone ms dos, it might not as well. be understood..that is.
I agree. > for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers > much like yourselves. I maybe would personally prefer not to be compared to them. > Is it official ms dos stand alone? perhaps not. I am not aware of any legitimate (legal) stand-alone MS-DOS versions 7 and up. I have been made aware that apparently one or some highly questionable "distributions" exist, but this mailing list probably isn't apt for evaluating these. (To clarify if needed: the previous is only my personal opinion.) > is it bundled under windows? not at all. This might be right. I think it's not important whether that's true, though. Significantly, these MS-DOS versions existed, even if we only consider them when they were bundled with MS Windows (whether versions 4, or later as the contents that a floppy disk receives if formatted to be "MS-DOS bootable" or such). Regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
