Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!mic!d25001
From: d25001@mic.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 5.0 & PC Week
Message-ID: <19400001@mic>
Date: Mon, 26-May-86 17:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: mic.19400001
Posted: Mon May 26 17:13:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 30-May-86 08:34:41 EDT
References: <123@wolf.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:wolf.UUCP:123:mic:19400001:000:2110
Nf-From: mic.UUCP!d25001    May 26 16:13:00 1986


>PC-Week has hit new limits (depths that is) in managing to talk the
>public into believing in a large Blue God!

If I were in a similarly unfair mood, I might suggest that you would
replace this with a large Blue Devil!

>Throughout this article, written by Garry Ray, he talks of the new operating
>system which IBM is planning to release, in MARCH 1987!  ...  If this doesn't
>sound like an operating system that has been in use for years (say 15!) I must
>have been on another world these last 20 years!  Even micros have had capability
>now for over three years!
>
>It is time for PC Users to begin to awaken and see the light at the end of the
>tunnel.  The operating system that I keep hearing that "power" PC users
>want is already there when will someone (maybe AT&T) start informing them
>of this?  An operating system due to be released in March 1987 is a rather
>ludicrous pie in the sky to wait for when something is already there.

  Now I understand, PC-Week has been worshiping at the shrine of the
wrong corporate deity!  Shame on you PC week!  :-)

  Seriously UN*X did not invent _all_ of the attributes of the modern
operating system; IBM/Microsoft may have gotten some ideas elsewhere.
I shall admit, however, that historically DOS can well be described as
CP/M trying to become UNIX.  Even so for the average PC user there is
one BIG reason not to simply plug un*x into his PC.  XENIX (and all the
other unices except the Wendin version) will not run DOS executables.
For many it may be less painful to wait a nine months to a year for an
almost-un*x that offers some degree of compatibility rather than junk
all their existing software investment and start over from scratch with
'real' un*x.
  Of course, if DOS-5.0 won't run existing EXE files; then, you are
right, it might as well BE un*x.

>Shame on PC Week for such one sided reporting.  I am beginning to wonder
>what type of journalism is practiced there.

PC-Week is primarily a rumor mill.  Take anything that you read there
with several grains of salt.

Carrington Dixon
UUCP: { convex, infoswx, texsun!rrm }!mcomp!mic!d25001