Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!bria!mike
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What is the definition of obsolete)
Message-ID: <349@bria>
Date: 14 Jan 91 03:25:47 GMT
References: <1991Jan6.232549.2764@isis.cs.du.edu> <1991Jan08.040128.22819@cs.fau.edu> <339@bria> <1991Jan12.233347.21388@cs.fau.edu>
Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike (Michael Stefanik)
Organization: Briareus Corporation, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 43

In article <1991Jan12.233347.21388@cs.fau.edu> cs.fau.edu!longc (Courtney Long) writes:
>I agree that MS-DOS is not the last word in PC operating systems.  My
>personal preference is OS/2, but I'm cautious in admitting that because
>most people haven't used is and don't know much about it other than what
>they've read.  I don't agree that DOS has outlived it's usefulness or
>that there is a readily available, affordable alternative which has a
>respectable applications base.  Some people say Windows.  What about you?

Some time ago, I read the book by the principal author of OS/2 and his
explanation of the OS/2 religion.  I found myself agreeing with many of the
fundamental concepts which, of course, has it's origins in UNIX.  My big
problem with OS/2 is the following:

	1.  It continues a trend of proprietary operating systems, which
	    I think should die a quick, terrible death. 

	2.  It assumes it's users are stupid.  Example: don't use lower case
	    letters in filenames because users can't tell the difference.

	3.  It bends over backwards to be compatable with MS-DOS, and thus
	    bloats itself unreasonably.

	4.  The kernel is monolithic and unsophisticated.  The ideas held up
	    to be "new and innovative" in OS/2 have been around for over 20
	    years.  If the argument is that these ideas are new and innovative
	    on machines that small, then think about QNX (circa 1986).

	5.  OS/2 is not multiuser.  The current trend these days in the PC
	    world is to say "well, yeah, I guess we do need multitasking,
	    but what do we need multiuser capability for?"  However, wouldn't
	    it be alot easier to simply plug in a terminal than buy another
	    machine or hook up an expensive network?

As far as an alternative to DOS, there are inexpensive (performace vs. cost)
flavors of UNIX.  And since the larger applications like WordPerfect,
Lotus 1-2-3, and dBase have migrated (or are in the process thereof), DOS
users don't have to give up those programs they have grown to love.
-- 
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 ..."