Path: utzoo!censor!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!jamesp
From: jamesp@world.std.com (james M peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Teaching and Old Dog New Tricks
Message-ID: <1990Dec18.020205.10271@world.std.com>
Date: 18 Dec 90 02:02:05 GMT
References: <1990Dec16.071745.19811@NCoast.ORG> <4701@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 21

><1990Dec16.071745.19811@NCoast.ORG> ramsey@NCoast.ORG (Cedric Ramsey) writes:
>>
>>If anybody can explain why DOS can't be enhanced, in a compatible way, 
>>without the excuse 'it was written for the 8088', 
>While on a similar subject, why does IBM say DOS can't be used for any
>multitasking, yet, there were some "hidden" and "undocumented" interrupts,
>
>Robert Douglas Davis     # Is reality real?  Can you prove it? 
>cs202101@umbc5.umbc.edu  # Can you write an algorythm to prove it?

Some light (but expensive) reading of note:  In the ms-dos encyclopedia
there is some talk about the directions microsoft wanted to push dos vs.
the directions its big mother wanted it to go.

It seems that microsoft wanted to put in multi-tasking in 3.1 (??) but 
ibm wanted network support first - guess who won?  It would make sense
to have m-tasking first so that a network process could be loaded and run.

All from memory - dos versions may vary..

jamesp@world.std.com         'Reality is not an industry standard'