Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7798 comp.sys.ibm.pc:37451 comp.unix.xenix:8370
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!compata
From: compata@cup.portal.com (David H Close)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again)
Message-ID: <23598@cup.portal.com>
Date: 2 Nov 89 01:27:28 GMT
References: <6661@ficc.uu.net> <10609@cbnews.ATT.COM> <143@asihub.UUCP>
  <843@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 19

Re all the comments on IBM and PCDOS:

Yes, PCDOS is not a state-of-the-art OS.  Yes, IBM has created a huge installe
base and must continue to support it indefinitely.  But all of us sound like
this is something new for IBM...

Does anybody remember OS/360?  or the System/3 OCP?  Neither are state-of-the-
art and probably weren't when they came out.  Has IBM stopped development and
abandoned it installed base?  No.  The customers won't let them - though I'm
not sure they want to anyway.

From IBM's point-of-view, there are advantages to a kludgy OS.  Customers must
rely on the IBM guru for advice and must buy the required hardware.  Account
control is the name of their game, not technology.

So why is anyone surprised by PCDOS or the PC itself?

Dave Close, Compata, Arlington, Texas
compata@cup.portal.com