At 04:38 PM 8/20/2011, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
>A thought experiment, ...

Do you realize that you are no longer talking about "DOS"?

>There apparently used to be a version of DOS called concurrent dos that
>actually attempted or was capable of multitasking.  Multitasking in the
>multiple core era should be more interesting where Linux is a great
>system, but it might be possible to squeeze more performance out.

Well, how?

>Figuring out what to use multiple cores for is a problem in today's
>world.  What do you with seven cores?  How about 100 cores?  Multicore
>chips are not coming into existence because making faster single core
>chips doesn't make sense, they are coming into existence because making
>faster single core chips is impossible.

But again, why use DOS and not one of the many OS that are designed 
to be used with all the (dis)advantages of such systems?

Even on a plain old Pentium III, DOS is likely most of the time just 
busy waiting for user input, so what should a 32Bit or multi-tasking 
version have as an advantaged? And how do you consider maintaining 
compatibility with the stated design goal of FreeDOS, "to be a 
complete, free, 100% MS-DOS compatible operating system"?


Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, 
user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take 
the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the 
tools developers use with it.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to