Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!timbuk!cb From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: A sad day... Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 17:31:30 GMT References: <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Organization: pubs Lines: 30 In-reply-to: johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu's message of 7 Mar 91 20:08:01 GMT In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu Bill Johnston writes: If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at Microsoft. On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world. As a newcomer to DOS, but not to computers, I'm amazed that DOS has never been adapted to the current generation of processors. DOS itself, in its original version, is just a warmed-over CP/M, making the transition from 8 to 16 bits. The main CP/M applications, Wordstar and dBASE, were released in DOS versions within weeks (it seemed at the time); someone had a program that simply rewrote 8080 code as 8086 code. These programs were of course later optimized for the new processor and environment, and many other programs were published that were designed for DOS from the start. But when the 286 and 386 came out, no comparable transition took place. Every other OS that I know has had to adapt to new hardware, especially bigger address spaces. It's all in a day's work. Why hasn't DOS done this? Because it had an installed base? That didn't deter the creators of other operating systems; people adapt. Other obvious improvements that should have been made were multitasking and longer file names. As several people have said here, Windows is just a big kluge to solve problems that shouldn't be there in the first place. The copyright issue is another issue (in which I agree with the critics of Apple). Christopher Brewster Cray Research Inc. 612: 683-5759 cb@timbuk.cray.com