thorh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Thor Hallen) (12/06/90)
Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ? I got tired of waiting and got Digital Research DOS 5.0 and it appears to do everything claimed for MS DOS 5.0 and is very clean without any major compatibility problems. I am able to load over 100k of TSR's and drivers and still have >620k of conventional memory. It works fine with QEMM 5.11 and Windows 3 in 386 enhanced mode but you "only" have 607k coventional memory. I have no affiliation with Digital Research, just a satisfied user. Thor Hallen Tektronix, Inc.
ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) (12/07/90)
> Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ?
Well, I know that Microsoft is having two major MS DOS 5.0 Previews
in Los Angeles this week for it's major corporate customers on a
"by invitation only" basis....maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>) (12/07/90)
In article <8550@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> thorh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Thor Hallen) writes: > > Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ? I have received an invite to a 5.0 "special preview" MS is putting on at a two large hotels here, so it must be close to ship time. One of our PC support people has a beta of 5.0 and likes it; I havent asked him much because Im scared that if I do Ill want it and dont want to bother him; Ive called our MS rep, but those people never return calls if it isnt directly in their interests. The invite is for next Monday, the 10th. Ill post my thots. Mark Aurit maurit@nrtc.northrop.com
dendres@loki.une.oz (Endres) (12/10/90)
In article <14029@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>, maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>) writes: > In article <8550@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> thorh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Thor Hallen) writes: > > > > Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ? > > I have received an invite to a 5.0 "special preview" MS is putting on at > a two large hotels here, so it must be close to ship time. One of our > PC support people has a beta of 5.0 and likes it; I havent asked him much > because Im scared that if I do Ill want it and dont want to bother him; Ive > called our MS rep, but those people never return calls if it isnt directly > in their interests. > > The invite is for next Monday, the 10th. Ill post my thots. > > Mark Aurit > maurit@nrtc.northrop.com I have read in detail about the beta version of MSDOS 6.0, and what I have seen it is going to be a big success. New features include :-- 1) Better memory management procedures including the ability to load DOS into high memory. Also comes with a High memory device driver. 2) MSDOS 6.0 uses less memory to operate (a big plus over the memory hungary MSDOS 4.x). 3) The line editor (EDLIN) is replaced with a full screen editor with pull down menus. 4) GWBASIC is replaced with the more powerful QBASIC. 5) The ability to remember previous commands you have typed in rather than just the last command you typed in. That is just a taste of some of the features you will get with MSDOS 6.0 which will probably be released early next year. I can't wait !!!!
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (12/11/90)
Is MS going to provide an update to the MS Dos Encyclopedia documenting all the new internals of DOS 5.0 (hint, hint)? -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: netcom.uucp
josef@nixpbe.nixdorf.de (josef Moellers) (12/11/90)
In <8550@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> thorh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Thor Hallen) writes: > Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ? [ Stuff deleted ] I find this amusing! Evereybody claims that MSDOS is superior to UN*X, as - it runs on small disks - it runs in barely 1M of memory But in the meantime, everybody is waiting for new releases with more and better features that closely resemble those features that our beloved UN*X has! I see the day coming that MSDOS finally catches up with UN*X having all the features the users want! But then - You'll need LARGE disks (Already MSDOS is breaking the 40MB barrier) - You definitely need more than 1M of memory. -- | Josef Moellers | c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG | | USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.com | Abt. STO-XS 113 | | !USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.de | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring | | Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |
kmcvay@oneb (12/12/90)
dendres@loki.une.oz (Endres) writes: > In article <14029@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>, maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com ( > > In article <8550@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> thorh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Thor Halle > > > > > > Has anyone heard when MS DOS 5.0 will be introduced ? > I can't wait !!!! You don't have to wait for the features you listed - pick up DR DOS 5.0 (Digital Research) and enjoy... no need to wait for Microsoft :-)
ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) (12/13/90)
In an article Josef Moellers <josef@nixpbe.nixdorf.de> writes: >I find this amusing! >Evereybody claims that MSDOS is superior to UN*X, as >- it runs on small disks >- it runs in barely 1M of memory >But in the meantime, everybody is waiting for new releases with more and >better features that closely resemble those features that our beloved >UN*X has! >I see the day coming that MSDOS finally catches up with UN*X having all >the features the users want! But then >- You'll need LARGE disks (Already MSDOS is breaking the 40MB barrier) >- You definitely need more than 1M of memory. I don't know who the heck said DOS is superior to UNIX. Considering the operating system only there's no comparison, UNIX is far superior; but, as one of the people waiting for MSDOS 5.0, there's much more to consider than just the OS: 1. The number of applications available for DOS is overwhelming, a lot of which are Freeware and/or Shareware! 2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. 3. And last but by no means least, from Computer Shopper (October): SCO Xenix 386 -- $469 Drum roll please.......... MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it worth the almost $400 price difference? You be the judge. By and large I prefer VMS anyway! -- Gary Hennigan +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu, henninsf@maxwel.NMSU.Edu + + Electrical Engineering; PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics + + Physical Science Laboratory (ASS)istant systems programmer + +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>) (12/14/90)
In article <josef.660901840@ugum01> josef@nixpbe.nixdorf.de (josef Moellers) writes: > >I find this amusing! >Evereybody claims that MSDOS is superior to UN*X, as >- it runs on small disks >- it runs in barely 1M of memory > >But in the meantime, everybody is waiting for new releases with more and >better features that closely resemble those features that our beloved >UN*X has! > >I see the day coming that MSDOS finally catches up with UN*X having all >the features the users want! But then >- You'll need LARGE disks (Already MSDOS is breaking the 40MB barrier) >- You definitely need more than 1M of memory. > >-- > Joe Joe I dont think anyone ever expects for DOS to even start to get close to UNIX as to functionality - that's for OS/2 (dont take this as being pro-OS/2, Im just stating a fact). What a number of us are excited about is that 5.0 will be a reverse of the "bigger is better" trend, in that 5.0 is smaller and can be loaded in high memory. It all comes down to applications. If I can run the applications I need in DOS and not in UNIX, then Ill choose DOS every time, no matter how technologically superior UNIX may be. On another note, I posted last week that I was attending MicroSoft 5.0 demo, and that I'd post an evaluation here. Sorry guys, the flu bug shot me down. Mark maurit@nrtc.northrop.com
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (12/14/90)
In article <josef.660901840@ugum01>, josef@nixpbe.nixdorf.de (josef Moellers) writes: |>But in the meantime, everybody is waiting for new releases with more and |>better features that closely resemble those features that our beloved |>UN*X has! Beloved? Beloved? Are we talking about the same operating system. The one that you type "cat" to display a file and "grep" to display and match patterns. (And please don't reply that that's not the operating system, it's the command processor. To 90+% of the world--the users--this is a meaningless distinction.) Beloved is certainly not the adjective I'd use to describe Unix. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
yogurt@mimsy.umd.edu (Rob Crittenden) (12/14/90)
> Beloved? Beloved? Are we talking about the same operating system. The > one that you type "cat" to display a file and "grep" to display and > match patterns. > Beloved is certainly not the adjective I'd use to describe Unix. I don't think we need another Unix/DOS war here, why not move it to alt.folklore or someplace more appropriate. Now, back to the original question, HAS anybody heard about DOS 5.0 (and not not DEC version)? And when is this supposed to come out? Rob +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | yogurt@cs.umd.edu Robert Comp Sci Dept, U of Md | | uunet!cs!yogurt Crittenden College Park, MD 20742 | +------------------- so much beer, so little time -----------------------+ -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | yogurt@cs.umd.edu Robert Comp Sci Dept, U of Md | | uunet!cs!yogurt Crittenden College Park, MD 20742 | +------------------- so much beer, so little time -----------------------+
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/14/90)
In article <GHENNIGA.90Dec13005440@tesla.nmsu.edu> ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) writes:
I don't know who the heck said DOS is superior to UNIX. Considering
the operating system only there's no comparison, UNIX is far superior;
but, as one of the people waiting for MSDOS 5.0, there's much more to
consider than just the OS:
1. The number of applications available for DOS is overwhelming, a lot
of which are Freeware and/or Shareware!
How much of this software is worth anything? A lot of the best stuff
like 4DOS is to help you overcome the serious limitations of DOS.
Personally, I'm tired of 64K segments, no memory protection, and
playing games in 640K. There is beaucoup Unix software out there too.
People should really take another look at Unix. Especially since the
new NeXT machines have hit the market.
2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far
outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX.
ls dir
cat type
mkdir mkdir
rm del
cp copy, xcopy
How much Unix does a user have to learn to get by on Unix? NeXTStep
makes it even easier. Most people where I work won't even touch the
CLI. NeXTStep lets you perorm these commands from a menu or
graphically.
3. And last but by no means least, from Computer Shopper (October):
SCO Xenix 386 -- $469
Drum roll please..........
MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it worth the almost $400 price difference? You be the judge.
By and large I prefer VMS anyway!
68040 NeXTStation: $4995( $3250 edu.) These machines are at least as
fast as the 486 machines available, plus you have a DSP, DMA and Unix.
I'm not saying Unix is the prettiest OS but it's here today and it
works.
-Mikecbishop@zeus.dnet.ge.com (Chuck Bishop) (12/20/90)
Oh no!!!! DOS vs UNIX again!!! Aaarrrrggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! ;') ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Bishop Internet: cbishop@zeus.dnet.ge.com GE Aerospace Burlington, Mass USA "Just Do It" - Nike ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ben@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL (12/24/90)
In article <Fwq_m?t3@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) write s: > 3. And last but by no means least, from Computer Shopper (October): > SCO Xenix 386 -- $469 > > Drum roll please.......... > MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Is it worth the almost $400 price difference? You be the judge. > By and large I prefer VMS anyway! > > 68040 NeXTStation: $4995( $3250 edu.) These machines are at least as > fast as the 486 machines available, plus you have a DSP, DMA and Unix. And from Mark Williams Co. COHERENT ---- $99.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- ________________________________________________________________________ | Ben Pashkoff BEN@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL | | BEN@TECHMAX.BITNET | | BEN@TECHUNIX.BITNET | | VAX/VMS Systems | | Computer Center Phone:(972)-4-292177 office | | Technion IIT FAX: (972)-4-236212 | | Haifa, Israel 32000 | |______________________________________________________________________|
dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) (12/29/90)
In article <GHENNIGA.90Dec13005440@tesla.nmsu.edu> ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) writes: > >I don't know who the heck said DOS is superior to UNIX. Considering >the operating system only there's no comparison, UNIX is far superior; >but, as one of the people waiting for MSDOS 5.0, there's much more to >consider than just the OS: > >1. The number of applications available for DOS is overwhelming, a lot >of which are Freeware and/or Shareware! Big deal. Most of them are primitive and not worth the disk space they take up. They are mostly meant to work alone (rather than act as building blocks for higher level tools, the way UNIX commands are used). GNU software is free, and it is more feature packed than a lot of standard UNIX, let alone commercial products--just make itself is far superior to any PD make I have seen and VASTLY superior to Microsoft's nmake "tool". >2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far >outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though? And is there a "man" in DOS, hell no! How about commands telling you what flags they accept? No again. You just get a "INVALID OPTION" message and your C> prompt back.) Not much easier. But then, when did anyone buy something simply because it was easier to learn when they expected touse the thing every day of their lives? I learned how to ride a bike on a one-speed with training wheels, but I quickly got rid of it and bought a ten speed. >3. And last but by no means least, from Computer Shopper (October): > SCO Xenix 386 -- $469 >Drum roll please.......... > MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Is it worth the almost $400 price difference? You be the judge. I wonder if that has anything to do with the sophistication of the operating system, or because SCO makes their money selling operating systems while Microsoft makes theirs selling bug-ridden applications like Word and C 6.00? Just add the price of the C compiler ($328 in Computer Shopper) and SCO looks more attractive ($469 vs. $438). Besides, with SCO Xenix I can get X-Windows and a debugger for far less than C 6.00a and SDK. And with X, I get the ability to use OTHER computers besides just my little 286 based toy. >By and large I prefer VMS anyway! Try doing some system programming in UNIX, and you will never go back to VMS again. UNIX makes DOS look like a toy straight-jacket, while VMS looks like a stainless steel straight-jacket that makes you ask permission to squirm. As someone once said in their .signature, "VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win, you get to use UNIX." -- Dave Dittrich Dept. of Chemistry BG-10, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 dittrich@u.washington.edu ...!uw-beaver!u.washington.edu!dittrich "Teachers are the only profession that teach our children." Dan Quayle
silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (12/30/90)
Before I start, let me say that I _don't_ like DOS and I _do_ like Unix.
But some of the statements in this thread _are_ rather misleading.
In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes:
$>2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far
$>outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX.
$The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands,
$rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though?
I never thought I'd see myself defending DOS, but let's face it - its
commands are much easier to remember than those under Unix (in general).
DOS tends to use the first few letters of a command, or the whole word if
it's short enough. Unix tends to pick letters out of the word. Yes, there
are some cases where this isn't true ... but look at the following. These
are three of the most commonly-used commands.
FUNCTION DOS UNIX
directory/list dir ls
copy copy cp
erase/remove/delete erase/del rm
$And is there a "man" in DOS, hell no! How about commands telling you
$what flags they accept? No again. You just get a "INVALID OPTION" message
$and your C> prompt back.) Not much easier.
Quite true, though one of the features that is supposed to (read: "might")
appear in the long-awaited DOS 5 is that the commands will give you their
syntax if you screw up.
$ rm
usage: rm [-fir] file ...
Very useful if I want to remove a conifer ... :-)
$> SCO Xenix 386 -- $469
$> MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$Just add the price of the C compiler ($328 in Computer Shopper) and SCO
$looks more attractive ($469 vs. $438). Besides, with SCO Xenix I can
So we have:
OS with C compiler $438 [sic]
OS without C compiler $469
I think many people would need convincing that it's worth paying an
extra 31 dollars to get rid of the C compiler. We're comparing apples
and oranges here, folks. One is a single-user, single-tasking operating
system, designed originally to ease the porting of applications from CP/M;
unfortunately, it hasn't grown up much since they put in some Unix features
in DOS 2.0. The other is a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system that's
designed for an entirely different set of users.
$Try doing some system programming in UNIX, and you will never go back to VMS
$again. UNIX makes DOS look like a toy straight-jacket, while VMS looks like
$a stainless steel straight-jacket that makes you ask permission to squirm.
I like that. But can we think for a second, rather than starting a
fanatical war? The majority of the computer users I know are far better
served by a DOS machine than a Unix one. Most of them run some combination
of 1-2-3, Symphony, WordPerfect, Word, Windows, dBASE, Excel, and other such
programs. They do no programming and, in fact, are isolated from the system
by a menuing interface. Yes, it's quite possible to give these people a
Xenix system with word processing, spreadsheet and database applications,
complete with a windowing system to hide the nitty-gritty stuff from them.
But it is not even close to cost-effective.
Yes, there are applications where a Xenix machine is far more appropriate
than a DOS one. We also have several clients where a high-powered Xenix
box and a collection of terminals, with a few PCs to suit individual needs,
constitutes the best solution.
--
__ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always
(__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching
__) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for
_____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTFmallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) (12/30/90)
In article <1990Dec29.171755.25340@xrtll.uucp> silver@xrtll.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes: } } Before I start, let me say that I _don't_ like DOS and I _do_ like Unix. }But some of the statements in this thread _are_ rather misleading. } }In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: }$>2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far }$>outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. }$The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, }$rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though? } } I never thought I'd see myself defending DOS, but let's face it - its }commands are much easier to remember than those under Unix (in general). }DOS tends to use the first few letters of a command, or the whole word if }it's short enough. Unix tends to pick letters out of the word. Yes, there }are some cases where this isn't true ... but look at the following. These }are three of the most commonly-used commands. } }FUNCTION DOS UNIX }directory/list dir ls }copy copy cp }erase/remove/delete erase/del rm Sorry, but that argument dosn't hold any water. Ever heard of alias? Under UNIX, you can alias ls to dir. And directory, files and any other command you may want for that matter. Under DOS, you have to write a batch file or, if the command is outside the command.com, rename the program. Ask software developers which OS they prefer and I bet UNIX will come out on top, especially for big applications. The package I work with has had soooo many tricks used just so the damn thing can fit inside 640k- even with overlays. And if I had all the time back I've spent playing with peoples config.sys and autoexec.bat and such files just to squeeze out another few k of memory, I could go to the US skiing for the season. And I know where I'd rather be....... The sooner DOS grows up the better. Cheers, +Mark. -- Mark Allsop Computer Scientist email: mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au The Statistical Laboratory Phone: At MacUni: (61 2) 805-8592 / \ Macquarie University, Australia Fax : : (61 2) 805-7433 | This one goes up to 11.....
silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (12/31/90)
In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes:
$Sorry, but that argument dosn't hold any water. Ever heard of alias? Under
Yeah, I use it all the time - when I'm running a shell that has it. Don't
forget, it isn't available on every shell. If you're using a shell that
doesn't provide it, then you have to resort to the same method you use in
DOS - shell scripts.
--
__ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always
(__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching
__) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for
_____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTFchaz@chinet.chi.il.us (Charlie Kestner) (12/31/90)
In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: >In article <1990Dec29.171755.25340@xrtll.uucp> silver@xrtll.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes: >} >} Before I start, let me say that I _don't_ like DOS and I _do_ like Unix. >}But some of the statements in this thread _are_ rather misleading. >} >}In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: >}$>2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far >}$>outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. >}$The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, >}$rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though? >} >} I never thought I'd see myself defending DOS, but let's face it - its >}commands are much easier to remember than those under Unix (in general). >}DOS tends to use the first few letters of a command, or the whole word if >}it's short enough. Unix tends to pick letters out of the word. Yes, there >}are some cases where this isn't true ... but look at the following. These >}are three of the most commonly-used commands. >} >}FUNCTION DOS UNIX >}directory/list dir ls >}copy copy cp >}erase/remove/delete erase/del rm > >Sorry, but that argument dosn't hold any water. Ever heard of alias? Under >UNIX, you can alias ls to dir. And directory, files and any other command you >may want for that matter. Under DOS, you have to write a batch file or, if >the command is outside the command.com, rename the program. > Ever hear of 4DOS? >Ask software developers which OS they prefer and I bet UNIX will come out on >top, especially for big applications. The package I work with has had soooo >many tricks used just so the damn thing can fit inside 640k- even with >overlays. And if I had all the time back I've spent playing with peoples >config.sys and autoexec.bat and such files just to squeeze out another few k >of memory, I could go to the US skiing for the season. And I know where I'd >rather be....... The sooner DOS grows up the better. Ask WHICH developers? Joe Consultant with his 4-person software house? Or a big-bucks outfit with 100s of employees, and is an outfit which wants to get bigger? Unix? Bzzzzzt! Sure, it's probably great for the programmers, but just how big IS the Unix market? Ask Gates just what Microsoft's percentage of sales is Unix (including their SCO subsidiary). Finally, the average user (Yes!, U-S-E-R.) doesn't really give a f**k WHAT opsys his box runs, he cares about APPLICATIONS. He further cares about the "usability" (and price) of those applications, not whether or not the operating system holds his d**k when he invokes an incorrect command switch. There's under-$100 programs that'll take care of THAT problem.
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (01/01/91)
In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: >In article <1990Dec29.171755.25340@xrtll.uucp> silver@xrtll.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes: >} >} Before I start, let me say that I _don't_ like DOS and I _do_ like Unix. >}But some of the statements in this thread _are_ rather misleading. >} >}In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: >}$>2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far >}$>outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. >}$The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, >}$rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though? >} >} I never thought I'd see myself defending DOS, but let's face it - its >}commands are much easier to remember than those under Unix (in general). >}DOS tends to use the first few letters of a command, or the whole word if >}it's short enough. Unix tends to pick letters out of the word. Yes, there >}are some cases where this isn't true ... but look at the following. These >}are three of the most commonly-used commands. >} >}FUNCTION DOS UNIX >}directory/list dir ls >}copy copy cp >}erase/remove/delete erase/del rm > >Sorry, but that argument dosn't hold any water. Ever heard of alias? Under >UNIX, you can alias ls to dir. And directory, files and any other command you >may want for that matter. Under DOS, you have to write a batch file or, if >the command is outside the command.com, rename the program. > >Ask software developers which OS they prefer and I bet UNIX will come out on >top, especially for big applications. The package I work with has had soooo >many tricks used just so the damn thing can fit inside 640k- even with >overlays. And if I had all the time back I've spent playing with peoples >config.sys and autoexec.bat and such files just to squeeze out another few k >of memory, I could go to the US skiing for the season. And I know where I'd >rather be....... The sooner DOS grows up the better. > >Cheers, >+Mark. > Of course, if you use 4DOS as your command interpreter instead of command.com, you have most of the mentioned features, such as usage, aliases, etc. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
yogurt@mimsy.umd.edu (Rob Crittenden) (01/03/91)
In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> you write: >}In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (D ave Dittrich) writes: >}DOS tends to use the first few letters of a command, or the whole word if >}it's short enough. Unix tends to pick letters out of the word. Yes, there >}are some cases where this isn't true ... but look at the following. These >}are three of the most commonly-used commands. >} >}FUNCTION DOS UNIX >}directory/list dir ls >}copy copy cp >}erase/remove/delete erase/del rm > >Sorry, but that argument dosn't hold any water. Ever heard of alias? Under >UNIX, you can alias ls to dir. And directory, files and any other command you >may want for that matter. Under DOS, you have to write a batch file or, if >the command is outside the command.com, rename the program. > Sorry to be picky, but aliasing isn't part of Unix, it's part of csh. Arguing which mneumonic names are better than another will get you nowhere, and if you guys want to continue bickering about something that will never be resolved, could you move it somewhere else, alt.flame? As for man pages, supposedly the beta-testers of 5.0 say that it will have a moderate help built-in. Anyway, if DOS did their man pages like unix, I don't think I'd want to give up 10+ meg (yes, they take up that much space) just for help! -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | yogurt@cs.umd.edu Robert Comp Sci Dept, U of Md | | uunet!cs!yogurt Crittenden College Park, MD 20742 | +------------------- so much beer, so little time -----------------------+
crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) (01/03/91)
In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu>, dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: > In article <GHENNIGA.90Dec13005440@tesla.nmsu.edu> ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) writes: >> 2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far >> outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. ^^^^^^^ Could you be specific? If you take a subset of Unix commands that is equivalent to those available under ??-DOS (there are many "DOS's" other than MS-DOS and PC-DOS), which of them are so cryptic as to make them so difficult to learn? I believe the public believes this because that is what they've been told to believe. That many who have tried both believe it because they learned DOS first and they don't want to bother learning something different--that's probably why I find ??-DOS *more* difficult--I learned Unix first. I've never understood why people claim that Unix is so hard to learn. I thought it was the *easiest* OS to learn (of those I've encountered). Nor do I think that ??-DOS is particularly easy to learn. I find Unix easier to *use* than either ??-DOS or VMS. > The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, > rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. How many people use all of them though? Exactly. If you are going to compare, compare learning to use an equivalent number of commands. Or, better yet, the commands necessary to do an equivalent number of things. I believe that it is as easy (or easier) to learn to use an equivalent subset of Unix commands and to learn to navigate the Unix file system. For one thing, you don't need to worry about what disk you are on (e.g. C:\SUBDIR) and if you don't want to worry about a hierarchical directory structure, put all of your files in your home directory. Is it the long (in some cases) command names that are supposed to make DOS easier to learn? I'm afraid that I find that hard to believe. Indeed, many use the same name (e.g. mkdir). And, is it really *that* hard to remember that "ls" means "LiSt directory"? That "cp" means "CoPy"? Perhaps it is the infamous :) "cat" command that makes Unix so "difficult." But even that difficulty disappears (at least it did for me) once one learns that it means "conCATenate a list of files and send the result to the standard output." I'd really like to learn what is "easier to learn" about ??-DOS. >> By and large I prefer VMS anyway! I believe that much of operating system preference is more of a case of personality conflict/compatibility than anything else. I believe that operating systems have a kind of a "personality" that may either be compatible with or conflict with that of the user. I seem to have a personality conflict with DOS and VMS while Unix and I seem to be compatible. I probably shouldn't go into this in this group but my impression of ??-DOS is that, in some respects, it is very VMS-like. Some things that I don't like about VMS (and, to a lesser exent, DOS) are: VERBOSITY: I'd much rather, for example, type "mv" than "RENAME." And, trying to remember how much I must type to get a valid abbreviation is more trouble than it's worth. The "english-like" command flags of VMS are another example. (Yes, I know; they too can be abbreviated.) BAROQUENESS: (Is that a word? :) The most obvious example of this is the VMS path specification scheme. As I recall (it's been a while since I've used VMS) it uses various combinations of :, [, ], ., $, and perhaps other characters in addition to file and directory names. What does that buy us? Unix uses exactly one character, "/", as a separator. That allows specification of the path to any file on the system. I *hate* typing VMS paths. I'm a mere user and don't know if there are any real (as opposed to imagined) reasons for requiring all these characters to specify the location of a file but *as* a user, it's a real pain. Clearly, the designers of Unix didn't think they were necessary. At least ??-DOS only requires the disk specification in addition to a path specification analogous to its Unix counterpart. OBSTACLES: I realize that some of the items that fit this category are for the sake of security. Nevertheless, every time I've ever used a VMS system, I've *felt* that its designers had placed every possible obstacle in my way. This category actually includes the previous two. Remember, these are *my* impressions. I know many who swear by VMS (and at Unix). That's what I mean by personality conflicts and compatibilities. Such compatibilities and conflicts are probably magnified by having learned one system before the other, although I'd begun to learn something about VMS before I encountered Unix. I've a question about DOS: Is there a real reason for the choice of switch character ("/") and path-element separator ("\")? Or was the choice made gratuitously (or, worse, just to be different from Unix)? I've always assumed that, since in some cases it's possible to use the Unix counterparts, that the choice was arbitrary. In some ways, I find that more of a pain than the baroque paths of VMS--the ??-DOS paths are enough like those of Unix that I tend to type them as Unix paths--those of VMS are enough different that I don't do that, I just hate to type them. Well, just a few thoughts. I really don't mean to start an OS war. I'd really like to know what about DOS is perceived as being easier to learn than it's Unix counterpart. Best, Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" crs@lanl.gov sorsby@pprg.unm.edu
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (01/03/91)
In article <10110@lanl.gov> crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) writes: >[following 10 layers of various replies]: >VERBOSITY: I'd much rather, for example, type "mv" than "RENAME." arrgghhhh!! I've been following this thread for a while because it's funnier than rec.humor.outstanding, but, please, use the system you discuss at least once. It's REN, not RENAME! Using the whole word is totally unnecessary. There goes the carefully structured paragraph about verbosity... And, BTW, I really like OS2... Yeah, already got my asbestos suit on :) Tony --Std.Disclaimer--
Greg.Smith@p11.f477.n104.z1.METRONET.ORG (Greg Smith) (01/03/91)
In a message to All <03 Jan 91 00:38> Charlie Sorsby wrote:
CS> Well, just a few thoughts. I really don't mean to start an OS war.
CS> I'd really like to know what about DOS is perceived as being easier
CS> to learn than it's Unix counterpart.
Well, I'm not up for any OS war either so here is my opinion. I believe that dos is easier to learn for some people because it is made similar to the old CP/M os of ancient machines. Back then, I don't know if unix existed or if computers were even capable of it, but CP/M was one of the main operating systems. Many people were forced to use it. The transition became easy, thus many people knew how to use dos. As for learning dos, I think that many people do have trouble with it. Some of the commands
are lengthy and boring to type. That has to be one of the main reasons. As for me, I didn't learn dos to a really great extent until I came upon 4Dos. It allowed me to do such things as aliasing and command re-assignment. I now have this computer setup to take commands such as mv, ls, and so on. In other words, I'm a dos user rooting for unix in the easier to learn field...
Greg
P.S. I have a command which does the same as unix's "cat", but it is called "y"! Now, where could they get that name from... (I'll change it now as cat makes more sense).
--- XRS! 4.00DV
* Origin: Reading this is pointless. (Quick 1:104/477.11)
--
=============================================================================
Greg Smith - via MetroNet node 200:5000/301
The Bohemia BBS System, Boulder Colorado (303)449-8946
UUCP: Greg.Smith@p11.f477.n104.z1.METRONET.ORG
or : ...!boulder!bohemia.METRONET.ORG!1!104!477.11!Greg.Smith
=============================================================================tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) (01/03/91)
In article <10110@lanl.gov>, crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) writes: >I'd much rather, for example, type "mv" than "RENAME." REN will do. So will ren. There's a minus point of Unix for you: Commands should be case-insensitive. After all, it's the same sequence of letters and it's pronounced the same, isn't it? So why should I have to worry about the state of my Caps Lock key? (Which, on this keyboard anyway, is easy to hit accidentally.) >I've a question about DOS: Is there a real reason for the choice >of switch character ("/") and path-element separator ("\")? Or >was the choice made gratuitously (or, worse, just to be different >from Unix)? I've always assumed that, since in some cases it's >possible to use the Unix counterparts, that the choice was >arbitrary. In some ways, I find that more of a pain than the >baroque paths of VMS--the ??-DOS paths are enough like those of >Unix that I tend to type them as Unix paths--those of VMS are >enough different that I don't do that, I just hate to type them. Naah. The "/" character is a well-recognised way of specifying command line options. Many systems use it. Hence a command such as "DOS\CHKDSK/F" will succeed in passing a parameter "F" to the program "CHKDSK" in directory "DOS". -- Tony Lezard. E-mail: tony@mantis.co.uk, Snail: Mantis Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge, CB4 4WS, United Kingdom. Voice: +44 223 421094. Most appropriate anagram of name: Lazy Rodent.
ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) (01/04/91)
In article <1990Dec31.201117.26371@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: >>In article <1990Dec29.171755.25340@xrtll.uucp> silver@xrtll.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes: >>} ---------------------------------------------------- Come on, people. If this is to be a UNIX/DOS flame war, please rename the subject as such. Not that this kind of exchange ever changed anyones mind... -ted- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ted@helios.ucsc.edu |"He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the W (408)459-2110 |Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness H (408)423-2444 |and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8 (RSV)
mahrk@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) (01/04/91)
In <10110@lanl.gov>, crs@lanl.gov writes: > In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu>, dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: > > I've a question about DOS: Is there a real reason for the choice > of switch character ("/") and path-element separator ("\")? Or > was the choice made gratuitously (or, worse, just to be different > from Unix)? I've always assumed that, since in some cases it's > possible to use the Unix counterparts, that the choice was > arbitrary. > Since you asked, the reason is one of the two items I listed in the Summary line. Apparently, when MS-DOS was created, they wanted it to look (somewhat? a lot?) like CP/M, which I believe had been using the '/' character for program control switches or flags. At the time, there was no such thing as a path (in CP/M or xxDOS - I prefer xx to ??) because all there were for secondary memory media were floppy diskettes (for a PC, that is). When the notion of hard disks, complete with paths and subdirectories suddenly became relevant, around xxDOS version 1.2 (which was actually later released as 2.0 and fixed to work in 2.1), the '/' as switch character had become so firmly entrenched that they had to use something else, so they picked the '\'. > Best, > Likewise. > Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" > crs@lanl.gov > sorsby@pprg.unm.edu -- Mark A. Hull-Richter Witty comment (identified for those who lack wit): ICL North America ^^^^^^^^^^^^^-----------vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 9801 Muirlands Blvd UUCP: ccicpg!mahrk Go ahead, flame me. I have Irvine, CA 92713 (714)458-7282x4539 a /dev/null on my machine.
cosheff@netmbx.UUCP (Charles Shefflette) (01/04/91)
ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) writes: >In article <1990Dec31.201117.26371@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >>In article <965@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: >>>In article <1990Dec29.171755.25340@xrtll.uucp> silver@xrtll.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes: >>>} >---------------------------------------------------- >Come on, people. If this is to be a UNIX/DOS flame war, please rename the >subject as such. Not that this kind of exchange ever changed anyones mind... > -ted- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I second the motion, I'm quite tired of hearing this argument over which is better *NIX or **-DOS. I have to work with BOTH of the plus several other operating systems at work EVERY day. Each of the systems has its good and bad points. When it comes right down to it, each provides the same basic functions, they are just implemented slightly differently. In general, if you don't like the command/user interface provided with a system, it is almost always possible to adjust the interface to provide you with one you can live with. In my case, I have created REXX execs in my IBM Mainframe account to give me a relatively good impression of using a *NIX system ( such as ls, rm, mv, etc...) The don't work exactly as their *NIX counterparts, but hey, it isn't *NIX! By the same token, my PC at home and the one on my desk at work are both using LEGAL copies of 4DOS. It provides enough flexibility to make it act almost truly like a *NIX system if that's what you want - right down to using '/' as a path separator and '-' as the switch character! If you really are worried about navigating a file system and care which drive you are using, try the DOS JOIN command, it's MUCH like the '/etc/mount' command on a *NIX system and provides EXACTLY the same sort of service: it directs access to a physical device to a logical path! In short, it really isn't worth the net bandwidth arguing about an issue which is really up to the individual who has to USE the system. What the heck, even the Macintosh OS has its good points... Cheers! Chuck Charles Shefflette, System Engineer cosheff@netmbx.UUCP cosheff@bitcave.UUCP (US Mail) ==================================== Box 9086 USAFSB | Off Switch? WHAT Off Switch??? | APO New York, NY 09742-4824 |===================================
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (01/05/91)
In article <gsa8u1w163w@mantis.co.uk-> tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes: ->In article <10110@lanl.gov>, crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) writes: -> ->>I've a question about DOS: Is there a real reason for the choice ->>of switch character ("/") and path-element separator ("\")? Or ->>was the choice made gratuitously (or, worse, just to be different ->>from Unix)? I've always assumed that, since in some cases it's ->>possible to use the Unix counterparts, that the choice was ->>arbitrary. ... ->Naah. The "/" character is a well-recognised way of specifying command line ->options. Many systems use it. Hence a command such as "DOS\CHKDSK/F" will ->succeed in passing a parameter "F" to the program "CHKDSK" in directory "DOS". The / switch preceded DOS in the Microsoft arena. If you remember (or if you weren't into computers then this will explain it) Microsoft became the leader in the Basic market with their implementation of Basic on the S-100 machines in the mid-70's. The basic command line switches in Mbasic 4.5 and 5.? were / while I seem to remember that in the 4.2 and earlier the switch was -. The switch was to specify record length, number of files, space, etc. These switches were what Microsoft used in those days, when they were primarily a "language" house . They became an OS house when they ported the ported the Seattle Computer Dos to the PC it was logical they retain those switches. Since you can call a basic program from the command line with switches it's hard to parse a / as a switch flag from / as a file name flag. The / as a "well-recognized" way is because of the popularity of DOS, not that it wanted to be different. If DOS hadn't been the choice for the PC and something else was we might have had the / for the file extension as some of the other small computer disk manager systems of that day did! -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/05/91)
In article <28851@mimsy.umd.edu> yogurt@mimsy.umd.edu (Rob Crittenden) writes:
Sorry to be picky, but aliasing isn't part of Unix, it's part of csh.
And how long has csh been a part of Unix? Besides csh is primitive.
Might I recommend BASH or tcsh.
Arguing which mneumonic names are better than another will get you
nowhere, and if you guys want to continue bickering about something that
will never be resolved, could you move it somewhere else, alt.flame?
Unix doesn't mean cp, ls, ...,etc. Graphical interfaces will do away
with the need for most people to learn these commands. I know many
people that use the NeXT who refuse to use the command-line interface
of Unix. Do we all know how to click and drag?
As for man pages, supposedly the beta-testers of 5.0 say that it will have
a moderate help built-in. Anyway, if DOS did their man pages like unix,
I don't think I'd want to give up 10+ meg (yes, they take up that much
space) just for help!
Then delete them. That's what NeXT did on their 105MB systems.
Besides, 20MB floppies are about to hit the market, RAM prices have
plummeted, and hard disks are getting cheaper. Resources are cheap.
What we need an OS that will utilizes them. Not single-tasking 640K
crippled OS's with FAT file systems and no memory protection.
Everything that MS is trying to do with DOS, Windows and OS/2 has
already done, and is available now. Is there anyone that has used
both DOS and Unix extensively and who still prefers DOS? These are
the people that I would like to hear from. Everyone else is living in
ignorance. I have never met anyone that would take DOS over Unix,
once they learn Unix(myself included).
-Mikekevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (01/08/91)
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >you weren't into computers then this will explain it) Microsoft became the >leader in the Basic market with their implementation of Basic on the S-100 >machines in the mid-70's. >the ported the Seattle Computer Dos to the PC it was logical they retain Ah, this brings back memories. Back in the late 70's getting that damn tax program to work was a real b**ch, and then trying to port it to the new DOS was really strange. It was frustrating when the same damn command would give totally different results. If anyone remembers, some of the switches changed between Seatle DOS and the then CP/M and the new Microsoft DOS. Oh well, perhaps its best to retire those memories now. Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (01/09/91)
dhansen@nmsu.edu (Deren Hansen) writes: >In article <1991Jan8.143253.3590@javelin.es.com> >bgeer@javelin.es.com (Bob Geer) writes: >> Would someone start comp.os.msdos.unix.wars, PLEASE? >Great idea, except that you've set us up for another flame war: >Should it be comp.os.msdos.unix.wars > or comp.os.unix.msdos.wars! Easily fixed, make it comp.os.wars ! That way they can include OS/2, CPM, etc. Ant -- V ant "It's great to be young and insane" \o/ ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre /0\ Phone (07) 36 54078 University of Qld
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (01/14/91)
In article <9354@ccicpg.UUCP> mahrk@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) writes: >When the notion of hard disks, complete with >paths and subdirectories suddenly became relevant, around xxDOS >version 1.2 (which was actually later released as 2.0 and fixed to work >in 2.1), the '/' as switch character had become so firmly entrenched >that they had to use something else, so they picked the '\'. However, if one has `switchar=-' in their config.sys file then one can use `-' as the switch character and `/' as the directory separator (this works on my Toshiba T1000 with DOS 2.11). -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861
mahrk@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) (01/15/91)
In <1991Jan14.071740.5103@mks.com>, andy@mks.com writes: > > However, if one has `switchar=-' in their config.sys file then one can > use `-' as the switch character and `/' as the directory separator > (this works on my Toshiba T1000 with DOS 2.11). This is true as far as it goes. What happens if you do this is that DOS and any program which recognizes the SWITCHAR environment variable and acts accordingly will use these conventions (-/ instead of /\). I don't know how much software there is out there that handles pathnames and recognizes this. I suspect, from Andy's email address, that the MKS toolkit does, and I know 4DOS does, but as for the rest (applications, databases, etc.) I dunno. There's a whole lotta software out there that was written before the identity (and usefulness) of the switchar conventions became known, and some people actually like the \ character for a pathname separator. Anyone know more about what does/doesn't recognize SWITCHAR? -- Mark A. Hull-Richter Witty comment (identified for those who lack wit): ICL North America ^^^^^^^^^^^^^-----------vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 9801 Muirlands Blvd UUCP: ccicpg!mahrk Go ahead, flame me. I have Irvine, CA 92713 (714)458-7282x4539 a /dev/null on my machine.
dlsc1509@dlscg3.dlsc.dla.mil (Bill Hoyt) (03/30/91)
In article <gsa8u1w163w@mantis.co.uk>, tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes: > In article <10110@lanl.gov>, crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) writes: > > >I've a question about DOS: Is there a real reason for the choice > >of switch character ("/") and path-element separator ("\")? Or > >was the choice made gratuitously (or, worse, just to be different > >from Unix)? I've always assumed that, since in some cases it's > >possible to use the Unix counterparts, that the choice was > >arbitrary. In some ways, I find that more of a pain than the > >baroque paths of VMS--the ??-DOS paths are enough like those of > >Unix that I tend to type them as Unix paths--those of VMS are > >enough different that I don't do that, I just hate to type them. > > Naah. The "/" character is a well-recognised way of specifying command line > options. Many systems use it. Hence a command such as "DOS\CHKDSK/F" will > succeed in passing a parameter "F" to the program "CHKDSK" in directory "DOS". > I read somewhere awhile back the reason that MS-DOS uses the backslash as the pathname separator, but I can't remember where I read it. It stated that when the original PC's were developed they did not look far enough into the future to see that pathnames would be needed, because the original PC only supported cassette and floppy drives, hense the term cassette basic. When it became apparant that a pathname separator was needed for later versions of the PC that supported hard drives MicroSoft found themselves with a little problem. Since, they had already used the slash character as a switch character, they had to use another character. They selected the backslash as that character. Hope this clears that up for you... Bill Hoyt
valley@uchicago (Doug Dougherty) (03/31/91)
dlsc1509@dlscg3.dlsc.dla.mil (Bill Hoyt) writes: > I read somewhere awhile back the reason that MS-DOS uses the backslash as > the pathname separator, but I can't remember where I read it. It stated > that when the original PC's were developed they did not look far enough > into the future to see that pathnames would be needed, because the > original PC only supported cassette and floppy drives, hense the > term cassette basic. When it became apparant that a pathname separator > was needed for later versions of the PC that supported hard drives > MicroSoft found themselves with a little problem. Since, they had > already used the slash character as a switch character, they had to use > another character. They selected the backslash as that character. It wasn't so much a matter of not looking forward to the need for paths, as that, originally, DOS was intended to look as much as possible like CP/M. CP/M (like RSTS before it) used the slash, so DOS 1.0 used the slash (so that people could easily make the transition from CP/M) One can argue that the break could (should?) have been made at any point along the way (i.e., CP/M -> DOS 1.0 or DOS 1.0 -> DOS 2.0) But it wasn't...
psheerin@szebra.com (Peter Sheerin) (04/04/91)
Well, I just used RSTS thismorning, and it doesn't use slashes, but "accounts" in the form "[23,45]", or any other numbers, almost. It's called a PPN, or Project Programmer Number. Sort of a two lever heirarchy.... :x