On 2000-09-01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <Or Botton> said:
>I wander if its a good idea to have a sort of a DOS that would be
>more in the intrest of supporting the new computers. There are
>allready quite alot of DOSs that are aimed for 286 and less systems.
>But there arent any specificly 386+ DOS systems.
Unfortunately, it seems that those interested in promoting consumerism
would rather have the masses convinced that older computers (for
instance, the PC and ISA class machines) are a hopelessly impotent
source of development for today's "Web-charged" economics. But I
believe the truth of the matter is many fear that, without "designed
obsolescence", there can be no flow of New Economy cash. In other
words, there seems to be no time for reflection on what has worked
and what has been *really* necessary with home PCs -- instead, we
see loads of time spent on *projection* of profit-making opportunities
at the expense of practical, uncomplicated uses for *appropriately
powered* PCs: reading, writing and arithmatic! And, naturally,
existing editions of DOS for the older machines are certainly adequate
for these uses. The rest of the "bells and whistles" technology seems
more and more to be materializing into one vast commercial display of
who can out "gee-whiz" the next guy and make more money. That's very,
very shallow, in my opinion.
But, who knows? One day, if we keep up our little "soap box" in areas
like this, movements will develop to preserve the better aspects of
what we witnessed at the beginning of the PC and DOS Age, and common
sense will prevail.
We can only hope that, in days to come, folks will eventually come
to find more satisfaction in a job well done after a hard day's work,
instead of memories of "a good time" with a hangover on the morning
after!
>The reasons as far as I see for "perserving DOS in the 21th century"
>is simply because: 1)Tons'O'software 2)I allready prefer to do in it
>just about everything 3)Its working.
>Problem is that most people believe that beyond working on a 286-,
>DOS dont really have a purpose anymore. I believe it has - if, and
>only if it will finally get updated. (note: I am NOT talking about
>trowing away 286- compatibility, but about the general theoretical
>idea of why not having a DOS flavor that is constracted with lessons
>learned during the years and the ability to control the new features
>in the new machines efficently. Presumly at the cost of 286-
>compatibility, but this will remain in the current DOS flavers that
>arent going to die anytime soon.)
>When I think about a DOS that is nativly 32-bit, multitasking, and
>can handle most of the bells and whistles, people tend to ask me
>why I cant just move to Linux "because its exactly what you're
>describing". Well, its not. I tried, and after I failed I even tried
>to force myself, but Linux is absolutly what i'm not expecting from
>that system. No, i'm not bashing it - its good. Its just not the
>thing i'm describing.
My feelings on Linux are the same as yours. It isn't a cure-all for
the "DOS blues", and what's more, I don't think it's been wise for
the Linux folks to give it the "flavor" of entertainment and the
"coolness" of Windows. It's far too sophisticated for that sort of
thing and should be considered on a much higher level of usage than
ordinary day to day DOS; it should be developed for important
business and network related markets/uses, not entertainment.
Jerry [o - - ] IBM PC/AT 5170/enhanced [--^~---] 9600 kbps
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [--===--] V.32/V.42bis
Net-Tamer V 1.11.2X - Registered
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.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
