Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7618 comp.sys.ibm.pc:36656 comp.unix.xenix:8132
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: dosread.c again
Message-ID: <1989Oct22.003554.24199@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <3717@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3a18.2536ede8@ibmpcug.co.uk> <3721@ast.cs.vu.nl> <2501@optilink.UUCP> <1989Oct20.170447.19573@utzoo.uucp> <5182@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 00:35:54 GMT

In article <5182@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> webb@uhccux.UUCP (Thomas Webb) writes:
>... The moral here is that while DOS is undeniably
>feeble, it works very well in a low cost, low power environment.  

Actually, Unix used to work pretty well in equally low-power environments.
(Similarly slow CPUs, slightly better disks, far less memory, poorer I/O.)

>PS
>Henry, I teach 'common people' about unix as part of my job, and most
>of them don't want to know anthing more then how to load SPSS or
>whatever anyway.  Maybe DOS has all they need?

Until they want to know why their DOS programs can't use any more than
640K of memory even though their 386 box has 2MB, that is.  DOS's mistakes
have very little impact on canned-program users directly, but it gets its
licks in indirectly, by making life harder for the application programs.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu