sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (01/02/91)
(I've crossposted this to comp.os.misc, and directed followup's there. Anyone who objects is free to change that, but it's the closest I could think of for the groups I read 8-).) In article <1991Jan02.035501.9457@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >I'd be the last to argue that MS-DOS is the world's best operating system, but >it has its redeeming points. Agreed, and you point out some of them. My problem with DOS is that I think its time has passed. Users want/need *more*. OS/2 comes close, I guess, but I don't think it's quite right (it feels too much like DOS still 8-)). For managing the small machine that was the 8088-based IBM PC, DOS is fine. For handling the not-so-small machine that kithrup is (25MHz '386, 8Mb RAM), it is not good enough for what I want to do. My objections to DOS start at that point. There are lots of "DOS Extenders" available; I don't think any of them work as well as DOS-under-UNIX would (although they eat up a lot fewer resources, I will admit). They don't fit smoothly into it, and trying to keep up with the changing hardware and software demands is next to impossible. An example of how an OS grows to handle new hardware: '286 xenix vs. '386 xenix. The latter runs all the software from the former, plus has extensions of its own. It just ... *feels* better. Anyway: yes, DOS has its uses. If my needs were a bit smaller, DOS would probably suffice for what I want/need. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (01/03/91)
In article <1991Jan02.062657.21032@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >Agreed, and you point out some of them. My problem with DOS is that I think >its time has passed. Users want/need *more*. OS/2 comes close, I guess, >but I don't think it's quite right (it feels too much like DOS still 8-)). DOS will not truely die until the '286 machines/machines without 4 MB+ of RAM are dead. Even when the '386sxes take over the world, the DOS/Windows combination will still be chugging along for the (near) future (ie: 2-3 years). >For managing the small machine that was the 8088-based IBM PC, DOS is fine. >For handling the not-so-small machine that kithrup is (25MHz '386, 8Mb RAM), >it is not good enough for what I want to do. The 8088-based PC-clone is dead. I looked through the paper on Monday and (surprise) all the PC-shops are now hocking '286 machines; I guess the margins on selling 8088 stuff has fallen down. Not everyone who will use a not-so-small machine is going to want UN*X. Somehow I doubt Radio Shack is going to bundle it with their latest PC boxes. Doug Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan was right *
slsw2@cc.usu.edu (01/03/91)
In article <1991Jan02.062657.21032@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <1991Jan02.035501.9457@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >>I'd be the last to argue that MS-DOS is the world's best operating system, but >>it has its redeeming points. > > Agreed, and you point out some of them. My problem with DOS is that I think > its time has passed. Users want/need *more*. OS/2 comes close, I guess, > but I don't think it's quite right (it feels too much like DOS still 8-)). That's interesting. My complaint about DOS has always been that it's too big and I want *less*! But then I'm wierd... > For managing the small machine that was the 8088-based IBM PC, DOS is fine. > For handling the not-so-small machine that kithrup is (25MHz '386, 8Mb RAM), > it is not good enough for what I want to do. My needs are still mostly handled by Z80s and, now that Zilog builds 20 MHz Z80s, I don't see myself outgrowing CP/M for my personal needs for quite some time to come. > My objections to DOS start at that point. There are lots of "DOS Extenders" > available; I don't think any of them work as well as DOS-under-UNIX would > (although they eat up a lot fewer resources, I will admit). They don't fit > smoothly into it, and trying to keep up with the changing hardware and > software demands is next to impossible. OK, I'll admit, I have one CP/M extender running: I hacked over ZCPR to give me command line recall and editing. > Anyway: yes, DOS has its uses. If my needs were a bit smaller, DOS would > probably suffice for what I want/need. My needs are smaller than those addressed by DOS, so I still use CP/M. And consider this: in these days of 4 MB SIMMs and 20 MHz Z80s, I could build a system that runs entirely out of RAM and *feels* faster than most DOS machines; it wouldn't *be* faster, mind you, but it would feel faster for the casual use that I do. -- =============================================================================== Roger Ivie 35 S 300 W Logan, Ut. 84321 (801) 752-8633 ===============================================================================
braun@dri.com (Kral) (01/08/91)
In article <009421D2.34C43620@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >Somehow I doubt Radio Shack is going to bundle it with their latest PC boxes. > > Doug Point of Trivial Information: Radio Shack's Model 16 was shipped with Xenix. -- kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com That which does not kill us Makes us stronger - Nietzche