Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: DOS, now? (Re: terminology (Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.)))
Message-ID: <O.-3ON1@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
Date: 10 Jun 90 13:27:05 GMT
References: <6480@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <880003@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 10

In article <880003@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
> However
> limited the architecture, I believe DOS has owed some of its success to
> its portability and sharply defined line between OS and application.

Didn't you forget a smiley here? System programming in application software
is rampant throughout the DOS world. you can't even write a simple terminal
program without replacing the DOS serial port calls, and it's damn hard to
do screen I/O at a decent rate through the BIOS. I managed it, but only for
use under 2400 baud.
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180.  <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.