Hello John,
Thursday, June 3, 2004, 6:17:52 PM, you wrote:
JO> I don't have any problems with the capabilities of DOS. When the user
JO> keeps things in the context and environment that DOS was was
JO> originally designed for = a single user, single session operating
JO> system; not pulling DOS into being a underpowered clone of designed
JO> from the ground up multi-user, multi-tasking operating systems.
I like DOS... even on my Windows machines. I do most all of my
programming in a DOS session, using DOS system calls... Windows
programming is too much like work, for the 'fast and dirty' utilities
I write for myself.
I *really* like a lot of old DOS applications... they run well, don't
eat much in the way of RAM or HD, and really impress my friends when
they stop by, and see me hacking away in an ancient old DOS interface,
all red, blue, and clunky.<g>
JO> I'm mostly commenting on an attitude which I see as a "true beliver"
JO> approach to all problems; DOS uber allis ("above all" is what I'm
JO> refering to). When you escalate the number of tasks - sessions -
JO> transactions - windows - or what ever you want to call it; DOS is
JO> probably being overtaxed and asked to do something it was never
JO> designed to do.
Multi-user, it isn't.
JO> I do agree DOS is one of the easiest to set up. My experience is there
JO> are a lot of operating systems you can set up and ignore - some are a
JO> heck of a lot easier than others to get to that stable stage where you
JO> can walk away from them.
One of the weak points for DOS, is that (except for the latest
versions), it is restricted to the FAT filing system.
-wittig http://www.robertwittig.com/
-weblog http://radio.weblogs.com/0128450/
A business is as honest as its advertising.
.
