Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!bria!mike
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What is the definition of obsolete)
Message-ID: <339@bria>
Date: 9 Jan 91 06:59:19 GMT
References: <1991Jan6.183213.27136@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Jan06.204401.21579@turnkey.tcc.com> <1991Jan6.232549.2764@isis.cs.du.edu> <1991Jan08.040128.22819@cs.fau.edu>
Reply-To: mike@bria.UUCP (Michael Stefanik)
Organization: Briareus Corporation, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 46

In article <1991Jan08.040128.22819@cs.fau.edu> cs.fau.edu!longc (Courtney Long) writes:
>Sorry about a operating system discussion on an ARCHITECHTURE (HARDWARE) 
>forum, but I can't let this one go by.  MS-DOS is NOT anywhere near obsolete
>and I can't believe someone would say this!  There are just too many PC's
>with too little memory and tiny little 808x processors for this to be true.
>And, if MS-DOS were about to become obsolete, there would not be any future
>versions of DOS.

The fact that there are many small machines capable of only running this
glorified program loader doesn't mean that DOS ain't obsolete.  Shall we
find out what "obsolete" means?

	obsolete, adj. [L. obsoletus, fr. pp. of obsolescere to grow old,
		become disused](1579) 1 a: no longer in use or no longer
		useful b: of a kind or style no longer current, oldfashioned
		syn. see OLD

Well, DOS is certainly still in use, and it could be called a matter of
taste on the subject of if it's useful, BUT, it certainly is no longer
current and is definately oldfashioned.  I vote for DOS being obsolete.

>I'm certain that your algorithms are quite good.  Keep in mind that:
>
>   1.  You don't use a garden hoe to grade for an interstate highway.
>   2.  Tubes aren't often found in digital computing systems.

If you're talking toolwise, DOS doesn't even get garden hoe status.  I
think of DOS more along the lines of a rusted trowel sans handle.

>You'll probably see a wider base of UNIX operating systems in the future.
>Yes, UNIX is a "professional" operating system (although you won't hear that
>from MVS users) and offers a rich programming environment.  Enjoy UNIX, but
>remember that you're really in the minority for small systems (as far as
>operating systems are concerned) !

So was DOS in 1981.  Because DOS is the status quo, that doesn't mean
you accept it.  The point is *move forward* - convenience has no place
with progression.  If MS-DOS users were representative of Mankind,
we'd be living in caves waiting for it to lightning so we could get some
fire ...
-- 
Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation
UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
--
technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."