Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7680 comp.sys.ibm.pc:36969 comp.unix.xenix:8229
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!usc!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbema!las
From: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (cbema!las)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again)
Message-ID: <10609@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 89 17:47:29 GMT
References: <6661@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr,20650,cb,9a110,6148605851)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 38

In article <6661@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
}In article <2526@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
}} In article <6615@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

}} # Largely because where the Mac is limited by its origins, DOS is limited
}} # by deliberate malice on the part of IBM and Microsoft.

}} I think a more accurate statement is that DOS is limited by its
}} age.

}Fiddlesticks, again. It's younger than UNIX, OS/9, MP/M, and a dozen other
}operating systems that ran on the same or similar hardware.

}Right. Single-tasking was forced by a hardware design requirement. The
}lack of ANY support for serial I/O was a hardware design requirement.
}The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it
}was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity
}on the part of Gary Kildall).

"Cheap" is probably the true operative word here.  I don't attribute
"malice" to IBM & MicroSoft, that's a little too strong - I might agree
to "attitude problem."   Everything about the PC design was cheap and
that is certainly consistant with DOS which began life a cheap CP/M
rehash.  I don't agree that single-tasking is forced by a hardware
design requirement, though I suppose that you could make a case that a 
small base memory configuration and the use of a slow 8088 processor
are hardware design limitations for a truly useful multi-tasking system,
so maybe I do agree after all.  Of course, anybody who remembers what it
originally cost to buy PC or XT back then might balk at the "cheap"
characterization, but I'm talking about cheap design, not cheap end-user
price.

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)
(Please note my mailing address.  Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)