Dale Mentzer wrote:
>I saw this on an OS/2 mail list posting and thought SurvPCers might enjoy it
>too.
Very interesting, but I would like to point this out (I know I might be
"preaching for the converted"):
>>>: > *** Everyone has not abandoned DOS. It's far more efficient and
>>>: > faster than Windows. Many still use it.
>>>
>>>: Yeah? Ever try restructuring your directory tree with DOS?
Often, most of the time when I download things from the Net and place all
of them in one directory (or even at a root of a drive if I feel lazy
(stupid thing to do since it often gives me more work)). Moving all the
.ZIPs .ARJs .RARs and .EXE files to a specific directory to investigate
them further (using a small BATch file that will copy/unpack the file to a
new directory and then change to that directory) is a peace of cake (3
BATch files for everything - including showing me file_id.diz (or simular
as ex. razor.nfo is also on the list of files beeing shown)). Doing the
same with Windows IMNSHO very hard since you will need to:
1. Find all .zip .rar .arj and .exe files by hand and mark them and then
move them to another directory.
2. Start WinZip/WinRAR/WinARJ (is there a WinARJ program?) select one of
the files and unpack that (to a new directory)
3. Ooops - Windows just created shortcuts - you need to move the files
(which you tried to do in the first place).
Now repeat step 2 for each and every file (and it's harder for the .exe files)
And then you need to look another time with "Explorer" to see if more files
are left and check them out as well.
>>>: I guess you don't quite grasp the advantage of 32 bit software.
>>>: A 32-bit processor gets pretty inefficient processing 16 bit code, not
>>>to
>>>: mention 16 bit code does not
>>>: have the extra instructions available. Did it ever dawn on you that
>>>32-bit
>>>: applications blow the shit out
>>>: of 16 bit applications, that is why people have left the shit for
>>>people
>>>who
>>>: can't tell the difference?
This one of my friends keep telling me - in theory it is true. But in
*REALITY* _often_ a 16-bit (DOS or Windows) is faster then a 32-bit one
(only diffrence are image software). This is actually not a problem of the
32-bit environment. It's a lack of good compilers for 32-bit programs. Have
you ever noted how many people use M$ compilers? This is the main problem
with slowness for 32-bit programs.
>>> An analogy would be television remotes: Let's say you are on channel 3
(I assumed you have already read it)
The Windows version would crash just as you are about to click for channel
29 in 20% of the cases.
(I assumed you read this as well...)
>>> You then finally tap on the waiter who folds & removes the table full
>>>of menus, and you get your order.
No, you get a completly diffrent order. And when you try and complain the
waiter has managed to sneak away and you can't find him. Asking anyone else
they just claim that it probably was "George P." and is a real Failure <G>
since he often causes these things and that they can't do anything about it
(you can press the utensils and the glass against the table and you will
however have a new waiter if you care to wait for a few minutes).
>>>: No it is not part of the reason. The only reason is unfair trade
>>>practices
>>>: that keep competitors from gaining access to markets. Nice wish though.
>>>
>>>*** Oh, that was the more recent lawsuit. I'm talking about the one
>>>from a few years ago that was against the Microsoft notion that would
>>>force
IIRC there are two law suits (Departmennt Of Justice + some 18 states or so
vs M$ and the Caldera vs M$ trial) going "on" at the moment. And every year
they get *atleast* another one that takes a very long time. For such a big
company that isn't so strange. What is strange is that they have never
*won* a case in the court to the full (the doublespace case both parts lost
right?) and have always managed to pay off the other part so they would
settle outside the court.
>>>consumers to throw out their present computers and purchase new ones
>>>along
>>>with new software. The Microsoft philosophy is to get people using, and
>>>dependent on, one version of their hard/software, then discontinue it,
>>>refuse to support it, and make people buy the same thing all over again
>>>except in a more tedious format. They have already tried to pull that
>>>with
>>>DOS & Windows 1 - 3, and will it soon happen with Windows 4 (WIN 95).
>>>This
>>>is what that lawsuit was about.
Yes, I bet that in less than 5 years M$ will be drowning in lawsuits from
all over the world.
>>>: People still use Assembler too.
The second reason why 16-bit programs are often faster is because many of
the 16 bit DOS programs are pure ASM. A small ammount of 32-bit are also
around.
>>>: But it is a spit in the ocean. There are no major software developers
>>>making
>>>: anything for DOS,
>>>: and that is when you know a product is dead, when nobody is developing
>>>for
>>>: it.
>>>
>>>*** Many DOS products are still being developed. They simply are not
>>>Microsoft products.
Correct, but the ammount is rather small (latest I saw was LucasArts -
requirment for Windows is faster than 166MMX - but the box claims 133 and
that might be for the DOS version (gotta try it on the other (120MHz)
computer someday)).
The things that aren't developed are:
1. slow programs
2. bloated programs
3. big programs
4. programs made by people who just want to point and click to get a
program done
I can live without this sort of programs, I rather use the good *old* once
I have that work much much faster.
Unfortunately for me game developers are in this group as well, but I
believe they will also "see the light" given enough time and start
wondering why a game that could easily been run on a 386 required a Pentium
in the first place.
(Game development stopped making progress IMNSHO somewhere around when
Quake got out).
I'll live with the old games (including many NES and SNES games).
>>>: And good thing to, since DOS is crap.
>>>: Always was, always will be.
The phrase "Always was, always will be." tells us somehting else about the
author he (I assume that it's a man) is not so bright (without DOS he
wouldn't have Windows - or so many computers at all on the market) or he
has always used a Mac and thought that would be the best thing (a mix is a
probablilty of course - stupid Mac owners aren't something new <G>).
This "Richard Bonner" seems to be a DOS fan why not ask him to join us?
Someone defending DOS on a OS/2 list this much is worth the effort IMHO.
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
