Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!tymix!hobbes!pnelson From: pnelson@hobbes.uucp (Phil Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: CrossDOS VS MessyDOS (WAS Re: Atari ST 1040 Emulator...) Summary: very similar products Keywords: CrossDOS, MessyDOS, MSH Message-ID: <3873@tymix.UUCP> Date: 12 Oct 90 01:35:29 GMT References: <1990Oct05.050625.28960@hoss.unl.edu> <24752@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> Sender: usenet@tymix.UUCP Reply-To: pnelson@hobbes.UUCP (Phil Nelson) Organization: BT Tymnet, Inc. / San Jose, CA Lines: 27 In article <24752@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: >In article joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes: >>Try MessyDOS. It's better than CrossDOS and free (shareware?) too. >I've seen *many* claims such as this. I've only used CrossDOS which has >been quite faithful in it's functuality. Why do you claim it's >better? My guess is because the author said so. On the net. Several times. I use them both, they both work. I use CrossDOS on a 2000 with lots of hard disk, and MSH on a 1000 with no hard disk but a RAM disk. The reason I use CrossDOS on the 2000 is because I paid $15. for it and it works. The reason I use MessyDOS on the 1000 is because I messed up execute or xicon or iconx or something and the CrossDOS install won't work without it. I have not found any other important difference between the two. Definitely no reason to change from CrossDOS to MessyDOS >John M. Adams --**-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! /// -- Phil Nelson . ames!pyramid!oliveb!tymix!hobbes!pnelson . Voice:408-922-7508 Clean House... and Senate!