Dear Mr. Broken Record...

< BG >

I understand you. Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be. Underneath W98 resides DOS VER 4.10.2222. The version that W98 likes to be known as may be different but I'd still think that it sits on top DOS like W3.11 did - perhaps better integrated.

I think that NT, W2K and XP start to dispense with the old model.


>Doug,
>
>I'm really not a broken record <g>. That is referring to the Windows version...you can also get the same information by right-clicking on My Computer. Here is a more information.
>
>
>Typing VER returns in Windows 98 shows:
>
>

>Windows 98 [4.10.222]

>
>You are suggesting they went backward two versions of DOS, then plopped Win9x on top of it. It didn't happen that way :)
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>I just checked on one of our machines that is running the 2nd Edition of W98. At the command window typing 'VER' results in '4.10.2222'
>>
>>As far as I can see W98 sits on top of DOS 4.10.2222.
>>
>>
>>
>>>You don't think so about which statement? I am positive the 4.00 refers to the Windows version. Further, I know that the DOS version in Windows 9x is *not* 4. Version 4.1 was, as Tom stated, the most unstable version of DOS released. Most people stayed with DOS 3.x (.2?) until DOS 5 came out. DOS 6.2 was the final MS-DOS release.
>>>
>>>BTW, Windows 2000 is version 5...of Windows, that is <g>
>>>
>>>>Steve,
>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Doug,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That means Windows version 4. The DOS version is 7.x, I think...
>>>>
>>>>Don't think so.. Are you thinking of DR DOS perhaps? Or Novell DOS, which it became?
>>>>
>>>>