akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) (01/12/91)
All those who say there are no bugs in MS-DOS must not use DOS. One of the top of my head is changing a disk with an open file will save the old directory to the new disk. Another problem is that most things from one DOS version is not compatible with the next version. Yet a $120 Commodore can have one or more different DOS versions active at one time and while being fully compatible. I can copy whole disks or format them while downloading or uploading from a BBS without any loss in speed at the same time. Why does MS-DOS have to be so backwards and stupid? I can automatically have word processing like power (it's called full screen editing) on a $120 Commodore at a command line, yet MS-DOS 3.3 still uses the old 1978 CP/M type of delete back only type of editing and cost $70 for the software alone. Speaking about CP/M, MS-DOS doesn't even have most of the power that CP/M Plus has (multiple time and date stamps, password protection on files or disks and full line editing to name a few). Yet to top this off, MS-DOS is the biggest seller while being no better than what was available in 78 (being the stone age days of computers). This shows how dumb most computer buyers (business buyers mostly) really are. Buy the product with more hype and the least functional ablilities. <BW>
mal6315@isc.rit.edu (M.A. Lecher ) (01/13/91)
In article <278e09fb-2433comp.ibmpc@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >All those who say there are no bugs in MS-DOS must not use DOS. One of >the top of my head is changing a disk with an open file will save the old ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >directory to the new disk. Another problem is that most things from one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not a bug in the program, this is a bug in the user.... >DOS version is not compatible with the next version. Yet a $120 Commodore ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmm, just about all my software does.. But you'll never find 100% compatiblility in any upgrades... >can have one or more different DOS versions active at one time and while >being fully compatible. I can copy whole disks or format them while >downloading or uploading from a BBS without any loss in speed at the same Gee I can do that, too on my PC... Without any loss of time. It's called buffered I/O. >automatically have word processing like power (it's called full screen >editing) on a $120 Commodore at a command line, yet MS-DOS 3.3 still uses >the old 1978 CP/M type of delete back only type of editing and cost $70 That's because IBM is in for making the computer... Leave that up to other people (sorta like spreading the wealth), who write their own command line editors, and make money off it. There are a lot of great command line editors for DOS out there that do everything from cursor key use to aliasing. >few). Yet to top this off, MS-DOS is the biggest seller while being no >better than what was available in 78 (being the stone age days of >computers). This shows how dumb most computer buyers (business buyers ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >mostly) really are. Buy the product with more hype and the least ^^^^^^ The correct word is "uneducated". They don't want to be bothered with testing out every possible program and finding what is best for them. So they either hire someone (who either tried to rip them off, or does try to help them, but still can't fully understand what they need) or go for what they think looks like what they want. Unfortunately this means "flash" 90% of the time. Also, for the most part, 80% of computer users don't need much power over a simple MSDOS 3.3 machine. Why do they need full screen command line editor, multi-tasking, 60 megs of disk space, if the only things they will ever type are "checkbook", "write", and "tetris". -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= mattl@nick.csh.rit.edu ! Swapping memory to disk is virtually indespensible.. mal6315@ultb.rit.edu ! ------------------------------------------------------ mal6315@RITVAX ! new book: "#define art of C programming..."
s907396@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Soon Mok) (01/14/91)
akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >All those who say there are no bugs in MS-DOS must not use DOS. One of I'm glad I didn't. It certainly has bugs but I haven't encountered any really serious ones. >the top of my head is changing a disk with an open file will save the old >directory to the new disk. Another problem is that most things from one Which version of MSDOS are you familiar with? I'm using MSDOS 4.01 and it seems to have taken care of this problem. I think. I tried what you described above and MSDOS gave me an "Invalid disk change" or something like that. Also floppies formatted with DOS 4.01 has a serial number which allows MSDOS to keep track of which floppies should be in which drive. >DOS version is not compatible with the next version. Yet a $120 Commodore True, external DOS commands are not compatible across different versions but what problems does that cause? Floppies formatted under different versions are still OK cept maybe with very old version such as MSDOS V1.00 >being fully compatible. I can copy whole disks or format them while >downloading or uploading from a BBS without any loss in speed at the same I can do that as well with no loss of speed as long as I don't access the floppy drive. That's because the floppy drives on an IBM takes over the whole system when it's being accessed. Is this a MSDOS fault or the design of the disk controllers? As I remember Commodore drives are smarter, even has a CPU on the disk drives itself. I'm referring to the C64 which is the only Commodore I've ever used. I also remember that C64 drives are horrendously slow. >time. Why does MS-DOS have to be so backwards and stupid? I can Ask Microsoft. Personally I think it's OK, not fantastic but adequate. If you don't like MSDOS, get DRDOS V5 or the shareware 4dos for your IBM. Or maybe UNIX if you can afford it. >editing) on a $120 Commodore at a command line, yet MS-DOS 3.3 still uses >the old 1978 CP/M type of delete back only type of editing and cost $70 >for the software alone. Speaking about CP/M, MS-DOS doesn't even have Yep, agreed. That feature should have been incorporated into MSDOS long ago. It's only being done now with MSDOS V5.00 Well, not that much of a problem, just use DOSEDIT. >most of the power that CP/M Plus has (multiple time and date stamps, >password protection on files or disks and full line editing to name a Funny isn't it? I wonder what machines still uses CP/M. >few). Yet to top this off, MS-DOS is the biggest seller while being no >better than what was available in 78 (being the stone age days of Actually it would be more accurate to say that the IBM is the biggest seller and that by some unfortunate/fortunate coincidence(depending on your point of view) MSDOS was the default OS that was included with the IBMs. >computers). This shows how dumb most computer buyers (business buyers >mostly) really are. Buy the product with more hype and the least >functional ablilities. <BW> I hardly think that MSDOS is the limiting factor in deciding funcionality on MSDOS machines. Many business users do not even see the MSDOS command line but operate a menu/GUI driven software. As for power users like I, I don't mind the limitations of MSDOS. And since UNIX is too expensive, OS-2 hasn't enough software support, I don't have much of a choice. I think I'll wait for MSDOS V5.00 and see what it has to offer. Sounds good. Ciao, -- -----/ _ _ \-------------------------------------------------------------------- | o o | Eugene Mok s907396@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Melbourne OZ) \ ^ / Fidonet 3:633/375 ------\ o /---------------------------------------------------------------------
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/14/91)
akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >All those who say there are no bugs in MS-DOS must not use DOS. One of >the top of my head is changing a disk with an open file will save the old >directory to the new disk. Hmmm, are you sure that this is DOS's fault? If I take a 20mm anti-tank gun and fire it through my pc (running dos) while i have an open file, the file will be destroyed. I suppose that DOS *could* check for an awful lot of possible occurrences that would impede a successful file write, but it can't check everything. (BTW, did you mean "Off the top of my head...?") >This shows how dumb most computer buyers (business buyers >mostly) really are. Buy the product with more hype and the least >functional ablilities. <BW> I would tend to agree with you there. Unfortunately, or fortunately, all people (well, ok, most people) in this world have their own strengths and weaknesses and we, as computer science people, experience knowledge of computers as one of our strengths. If I were to go and buy something that I didn't have a great deal of experience with, such as, say, a motorcycle or mountain climbing equipment, I am sure that a lot of people would consider me "pretty dumb" when they saw what i purchased... (:-( Who are these computer buyers supposed to believe? Look at the barrage of computer related advertising; it can and is truly daunting for the uninitiated. I don't consider myself dumb or uninitiated but I am daunted when i start paying attention to a particular segment of advertising when i begin to shop for something not previously shopped for. (i know, bad grammar) Every advertiser overuses superlatives in their advertisements... somebody has to be wrong. -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (01/14/91)
"This shows how dumb most computer buyers (business buyers mostly) really are. Buy the product with more hype and the least functional ablilities." Yeah, I know what you mean. What the heck do these people need with all those DOS applications anyway? I mean, computers were meant for better things than spreadsheets and databases. It's nice to ponder that we know so much more than all those poor boobs out there who only want a machine to be useful and can't appreciate the glories of new technologies. (Yes, I am kidding.) -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (01/14/91)
I think the point of the original post was to point out the deficiencies in MSDOS, which abound. Anyone who honestly believes that MSDOS is not a steaming pile, probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Comparing MSDOS to UNIX is like comparing an old VW Bug to a new Porsche. Now, if you want to make the arguement that most people only need Bugs, that's a different discussion. -- Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | Society is produced by our wants, Field Robotics Center, | and government by our wickedness;... Carnegie Mellon University | Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", Jan 1776 (412) 268-6557 |
cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (01/15/91)
In article <GERRY.91Jan14100211@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >I think the point of the original post was to point out the >deficiencies in MSDOS, which abound. Anyone who honestly believes >that MSDOS is not a steaming pile, probably also believes in Santa >Claus and the Easter Bunny. Comparing MSDOS to UNIX is like comparing >an old VW Bug to a new Porsche. > >Now, if you want to make the arguement that most people only need >Bugs, that's a different discussion. You also forgot to mention the fact that you can build up a VW Bug that will beat a Ford Mustang 5.0 in a drag race. -- Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" dlou@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!" [backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+==================================================== dlou@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
dlow@pollux.HP.COM (Danny Low) (01/15/91)
>(Gerry Roston) >Comparing MSDOS to UNIX is like comparing an old VW Bug to a new Porsche. Good comparison for MSDOS. The old Bugs were good cheap reliable basic transportation. MSDOS is a good cheap reliable basic OS for people who want to get some real work done. Bad comparison for Unix. Unix is more like a commerical van. Infinitely customizable with a huge capacity but expensive, slow and guzzles gas. Or are you saying that Unix is a yuppie toy when you compare it to a Porsche? :-) Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP CPCD dlow@pollux.svale.hp.com
conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) (01/15/91)
In article <GERRY.91Jan14100211@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >Comparing MSDOS to UNIX is like comparing an old VW Bug to a new Porsche. I'd liken UNIX to a combine harvester, or even a bus - not the sort of thing you'd go shopping in! Unix a Porsche? Hah! -- Conrad Bullock, Domain: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz The Cave MegaBBS, BBS Ph: + 64 4 643-429 Wellington, New Zealand.
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (01/15/91)
akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >the top of my head is changing a disk with an open file will save the old >directory to the new disk. Another problem is that most things from one Well - this is not a problem in most cases, but here is a related problem: insert a write-protected formatted disk in drive A: attempt to copy a file to it - get "Abort, Retry, Ignore" switch disk - insert one you can write to. press "R" for "Retry" When you look at the disk you will see that the directory has been overwritten with the directory of the write-protected disk. This bug exists in DOS 2.x, and 3.x, but may have been fixed in 4.x - I don't use it and I haven't tried. -frisk -- Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland | Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 |
cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin Cummings) (01/16/91)
In article <GERRY.91Jan14100211@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: |> I think the point of the original post was to point out the |> deficiencies in MSDOS, which abound. Anyone who honestly believes |> that MSDOS is not a steaming pile, probably also believes in Santa |> Claus and the Easter Bunny. Comparing MSDOS to UNIX is like comparing |> an old VW Bug to a new Porsche. No, actually it's like comparing a NEW VW Bug to an OLD Porsche. The old Porsche is still much faster and better, while VW doesn't really ever change the Bug design. It's still basically the same as it was when it first came out! |> Now, if you want to make the arguement that most people only need |> Bugs, that's a different discussion. |> -- |> Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | Society is produced by our wants, |> Field Robotics Center, | and government by our wickedness;... |> Carnegie Mellon University | |> Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", Jan 1776 |> (412) 268-6557 | No, actually most people don't like bugs. That's why they either debug their programs, or document their bugs as "features" B^). ================================================================= Kevin J. Cummings Prime Computer Inc. 20 Briarwood Road 500 Old Connecticut Path Framingham, Mass. Framingham, Mass. InterNet: cummings@primerd.Prime.COM UUCP: {uunet, csnet-relay}!primerd.Prime.COM!cummings Std. Disclaimer: "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system SUCKS..." -- War Games =================================================================
richard@iesd.auc.dk (Richard Flamsholt S0rensen) (01/16/91)
>> On 15 Jan 91 16:27:56 GMT, cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin Cummings) said:
Kevin> The old Porsche is still much faster and better, while VW doesn't
Kevin> really ever change the Bug design.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nice pun!
--
/Richard Flamsholt
richard@iesd.auc.dkcs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (01/20/91)
In article <279759e7-2433.12comp.ibmpc-1@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >I have found that the quote "standard" doesn't mean better. Even though >IBM has three times more software than the Commodore 8-bit means truly >little as far as being better. It would take one over 3 years to run >every program now available in an eight hour day. Nobody would ever need >more software than that. Plus there are always new software becoming >available. There are also new hardware being released as well. I can add >16 meg or more to my Commodore 128 right now. This is far cheaper to do >so then to try to get a MS-DOS to 16 meg. It costs me $800 to add 16 meg at $50/1 meg SIMM. How much does it cost you? Many 386 systems are set up to accept up to 16 megs of memory modules so that you don't have to buy extra boards. I assume the C128 requires the use of an expansion board to get that much memory. Furthermore, you have to page that 16meg. The 386 can access it linearly. >I use both MS-DOS and Commodore 128s side by side everyday. I have found >no advantage using MS-DOS over the C128 in many respects. I have found >powerful C128 software counterparts as well. Big pluses on the C128 side >are the following: > >1) A very powerful DOS and user friendly as well. I hate the phrase "user friendly". >2) Functions well as a CLI operating system (CBM-DOS and CS-DOS) as well > as a GUI operating system as in GEOS. I hate GUI's. >3) All the software one would likely to use now available and still more > coming. You could say that for almost any system, thanks to marketing hype. >4) Almost in every case cheaper to purchase, easier to setup, requires > less hardware to do the same thing in MS-DOS, easier to expand, and > the software is 1/10 in many cases to do te same thing in MS-DOS. I hate systems marketed as being easy to set up. >I'll say to those who claim that a C128 isn't as fast as a 386 computer, >I have this to say. I have compared word processing on both computers >using the popular software on each. I have found neither to be truly >greater than the other. I have done the same thing with >telecommunications programs and found Telix is slower than Desterm as far >as getting access to features. I believe Telix is one of the fastest in >the MS-DOS line, in my opinion. Yet, a Commodore 128 programs runs faster >with the same features. Well then, let's compare compile times, sieve times, spreadsheet recalc times, etc. I can't believe you are measuring speed with a word processor! Most of a word processor's time is spent waiting for the user! Perhaps the results of your experiment were skewed due to psychological priming. Same goes with the comparison of the telecommunications programs. I'm afraid you are a victim of information bias. >Those who believe a top standard is better, then I guess MACs, UNIX, and >Cray computers are worthless in your opinions. And those who believe that >big business are using MS-DOS computers are sadly mistaken. I have >researched that and they use mainframe computers, as MS-DOS just can't >access the amount of data or process as fast as they need to. <BW> I can't believe people still roam around claiming X is better than Y. Wake up! "X is better suited to my needs than Y" is what you should be saying! It would be really foolish of me to say "My Casio Databank wristwatch is better than the SPARCStation/370 because I compared the response times of both (when there were 40 people all trying to compile LISP code)". It would be wiser for me to say "I prefer using my Casio Databank wristwatch because it does what I want to do better. This reference is out of chronological order, but I put it here because I think it applies... >I use both MS-DOS and Commodore 128s side by side everyday. I have found >no advantage using MS-DOS over the C128 in many respects. I have found I'm glad you use a platform that fits your needs. This is wise. I've seen many people ignore this dictum. Quit claiming your platform is better than everyone else. This is foolish. For me, my 386 fits my needs perfectly, not the C128, not the Apple][, not the A2500, not a SPARCStation (well, if I could afford it, it would), ad infinitum... -- Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" dlou@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!" [backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+==================================================== dlou@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (01/21/91)
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc, cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) typed:
$In article <279759e7-2433.12comp.ibmpc-1@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes:
$>2) Functions well as a CLI operating system (CBM-DOS and CS-DOS) as well
$> as a GUI operating system as in GEOS.
$I hate GUI's.
Not the best answer, Dennis; the correct answer is to point out that the
PC can also be run using the CLI or GUI approach.
[claims that a C128 is faster than a 386 because word processors run as
well on either and he can find his way around a C128 communications
program faster than for a DOS one]
Indeed, a user-speed driven program such as a word processor is not
at all a valid test of processor speed. I took the old BYTE benchmark
suite and ran it on a number of machines, including the C64. It was
not able to run one of the benchmarks, and on the others, an original IBM
PC (4.77 MHz, 8088) outperformed it by a very large margin. While it
can be debated as to how valid such a suite is, and how much of an
influence the C compiler had, there is no question that a C64 is far
less powerful than an IBM PC, and this result would also apply to the
C128.
Of course, if all you want to do is word processing, and you find
that the C128 handles the task more effectively (according to what
makes you effective) than does a 386, then by all means, use your
C128. In fact, a 386 is wasted on the typical word processing task.
But the capabilities of a typical 386 system far outstrip those of a
C128, just as the capabilities of a Cray far outstrip those of a typical
386 system, and the most effective computer user is the one who uses
the hardware and software that best suits his/her needs, as Dennis
pointed out in his article.
--
__ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always
(__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching
__) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for
_____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTFdet@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/23/91)
cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) writes: >[..] I assume the >C128 requires the use of an expansion board to get that much memory. >Furthermore, you have to page that 16meg. The 386 can access it >linearly. I beg your pardon? I thought that the 386 was a segmented architecture. -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots
mra@srchtec.uucp (Michael Almond) (01/24/91)
In article <15763@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) writes: >In article <279759e7-2433.12comp.ibmpc-1@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: > ... stuff deleted ... > >I hate the phrase "user friendly". > > ... stuff deleted ... > >I hate GUI's. > > ... stuff deleted ... > >I hate systems marketed as being easy to set up. > Doesn't this remind you of one of the Smurfs(?)? I don't recall the smurf's name off hand. ;-) -- Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. mra%srchtec@salestech.com 4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200 emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra norcross, georgia 30092 (404) 441-1457 (office)
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (01/24/91)
/ det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) / 4:17 am Jan 23, 1991 /
$ I beg your pardon? I thought that the 386 was a segmented architecture.
$ --
$
Yeap ! With the proper environment, 386 is a segmented architecture with
each segment as big as 4 GB. 386 is linear when you use the "small
memory" model --- ie. you fit everything into one 4 GB segment.
Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------,
########################################### :
E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, :
Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) |
Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__
Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>sjo@cci632.UUCP (Steve Owens) (01/25/91)
In article <1991Jan24.020821.7641@srchtec.uucp>, mra@srchtec.uucp (Michael Almond) writes: > In article <15763@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) writes: > >In article <279759e7-2433.12comp.ibmpc-1@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: (various computer hates deleted) > Doesn't this remind you of one of the Smurfs(?)? I don't recall the smurf's > name off hand. ;-) I hate the Smurfs. |-} > Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) SJO