-=> Quoting Robert Bull to Leonard Erickson <=-

 RB> Hello, Leonard;

 RB> 31 May 03 03:14, Leonard Erickson wrote to Richard Town:
 
 LE> NT (and OS/2) simply let programs in the DOS box *think* they have a
 LE> DOS box to themselves (virtual86 mode on the CPU chip). The OS then
 LE> gets to pass on or deny any attempts at direct hardware access. Or for
 LE> some types of access it can "filter" the access thru a driver.

 RB> What happens if you install 4DOS/Take Command, and run your terminal /
 RB> fossil / whatever under that?  Is it high enough up the feeding chain
 RB> to  circumvent Windows strong-arm tactics?

4dos is a replacement for COMMAND.COM. As such, it's running on top of
windows, and in a virtual86 session. so it can't "override" that.

Take command (and 4NT) are running console sessions, so they are still
subject to the limits placed by the OS. And rightfully so.

Basically, Windows NT/2k/XP (and OS/2) are not using "strong-arm
tactics". They are acting *properly* to prevent programs on a
multitasking system from trashing other tasks.

Windows 1.x/2.x/3.x/95/98/ME are *broken* because they *don't* restrict
programs to the alloted RAM and HW access.

Direct hardware access and multitasking don't mix at all well.

--- FMailX 1.60