Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ralf
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: DO$ 5.0 features
Message-ID: <284f8a9b@ralf>
Date: 7 Jun 91 13:31:07 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science
Lines: 21
In-Reply-To: <1991Jun5.210939.9290@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Originator: ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1991Jun5.210939.9290@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) wrote:
}orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (oren alex) writes:
}just to get a few of the basics that should have been in DOS 1.0 from
}day 1 had the programmers been given the freedom to, and had the
}willingness to "do it right".

Please keep in mind that design goals have changed over the past decade.
MSDOS 1.0 was meant to be a CP/M clone, and HAD to run in 48K, with
enough left over for user programs!  When was the last time you ran a
DOS version in which the kernel and shell totaled less than 48K? (hint: they
haven't since DOS 3.0; DOS 2.1 weighed in at 40K, DOS 1.x at a mere 18K)
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: 1:129/3.1
Disclaimer?    |   Plausible impossibilities should be preferred to
What's that?   |   unconvincing possibilities.  -- Aristotle, Poetics 24
-- 
{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf  ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU   FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/53
BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE   AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school)   FAX: ask
DISCLAIMER?  Did  | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's
I claim something?| what we know that ain't so.  --Will Rogers