On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 04:18:29 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Problem running DOS under Itanium (new 64-bit chip from Intel) might be because
> of DOS being basically 16-bit. I wonder if Itanium or AMD Sledgehammer will
> preserve the distinction between real and protected mode, and between
> conventional and extended memory. FreeDOS seems concerned about maintaining
> compatibility with 286s and XTs, which limits its future prospects.
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.
[semi-rant semi-unidentified]
My system is (or used to be) high-end: 350MHz, running on DOS.
Its working very well. Games and tools just zoom around and look great.
When using Arachne, I can set it up to "full features" and it still
works very speedy (1024x800x16m, max mem for animated gifs, etc').
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.)
There is a small problem here:
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.
People who do not ask the Why-not-linux question, tend to ask something
else: Will it still be DOS?
Well, it might not be another "MS-DOS clone". But it will be DOS.
Because when I think of an OS I do not tend to automaticly decide
what its hardware confiments will be. As far as I concern, the MacOS
can remain being MacOS even if apple will start running it on PC boxs.
[/semi-rant semi-unidentified]
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
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
