Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!isis!dkessner
From: dkessner@isis.cs.du.edu (David D. Kessner)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What is the definition of obsolete)
Message-ID: <1991Jan6.232549.2764@isis.cs.du.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 91 23:25:49 GMT
References: <1991Jan02.035501.9457@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> <14900021@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> <1991Jan6.183213.27136@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Jan06.204401.21579@turnkey.tcc.com>
Reply-To: dkessner@isis.UUCP (David D. Kessner)
Organization: Math/CS, University of Denver
Lines: 25

There is an important thing to remember here.  MS-DOS is just about obsolete.

obsolete (adj):	when a tool fails to perform to the expectations of it's user.
				- The David Kessner Dictionary of Whatnot.

No matter how good MS-DOS was back in 79-80, it just isnt right now.  Sure,
it'll work for some people.  But there are the others, those who want 
real multi-tasking, large drives, 32-bit native support, >640K RAM, Virtual
memory, etc, etc. 

I've been programming since 1982, on everything from a TRS-80 model 1 CLONE
(does anyone remember the Genie?), Commodore 64, IBM's, Apples, and many
UNIX boxes.  I am at the point where the operating system greatly affects
how I program.  At times I come up with a great new algorithm, but it cannot
be done under MS-DOS without jumping through hoops.  I usually end up using
MS-DOS more as an overglorified program loader than anything else.  Now, I
cannot live without my UUCP, multi-user multi-tasking, etc, etc.  In that
respect, MS-DOS is obsolete (and can loosely be called WRONG).

I wonder what would happen is MS-DOS would be more like UNIX.  With all those
MS-DOS programmers who could better spend their time programming rather than
compensating for the OS.

David Kessner
kessner!david@csn.org