Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/04/22/10:55:27
This message is perfect flame-bait.
I myself like DOS (a lot better than windows) but I'm not sure
if you should be sharing this with humanity---humanity just isn't
ready for such things.
arh14 AT cornell DOT edu wrote:
>
> Part of what I left out of my short, short message:
>
> Dos is not secure.
> Dos is not sophisticated (relatively speaking).
>
> BUT
>
> Dos is SIMPLE
> Dos is SMALL
> Dos is FAST! (direct hardware access)
> Dos is single-user
>
> The majority of "normal" computer users don't care about users
> and permissions and security levels and ownership. They don't need a
> multiuser system. Windows itself is complex enough. They just need
> something that makes their computer *work* (not even reliable it appears,
> although the simpler the OS the easier it is to make reliable!). And
> something that is fast is even better. By stripping away the features
> that the target audience doesn't care about, one can improve on those
> that they do. I think there is plenty of room (if not an imperitive) for
> a small, fast, simple OS (preferably 32 bit) that does everything one
> wants it to do and nothing one doesn't need.
>
> My concern is that while people are pitching Linux and other modern
> hi-tech operating systems as the Windows/DOS alternative, they miss the
> point that some people really *don't* need the included features and
> would *gladly* sacrifice them for performance, size, simplicity, etc. I
> don't see any player in this field right now. There is no Windows/DOS
> alternative that is as simple and fast (not to say Windows is that
> fast), not to mention fully backward compatible with all the thousands of
> DOS programs. Bigger (in feature count, sophistication) is not necessarily
> better.
>
> Aaron
- Raw text -