Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/15/12:53:12
On 14 Sep 1999 02:08:01 -0500, les AT Mars DOT mcs DOT net (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <37ddafe0 DOT 858354 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net>,
>Michael Kearns <michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
>
>>I could quite happily run a DOS emulation under Windows (any variety),
>>Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS and probably quite a few other OSs. I don't want that.
>>I want DOS, by itself, with enhanced functionality. Simple.
>
>But the whole point of DOS is that it just loads applications and
>lets them take over the machine. If you enhance it, it won't
>be DOS anymore and it will probably be a lot worse than the
>well tested alternatives.
If that were the case, you could never *ever* have a dos emulation under
another operating system. After all, does Linux unload itself when using
DOSEmu ? I don't think so.
The whole point of DOS at the time of it's conception, was that it was the
OS for the x86. (There may have been a few others, I don't know). Point
being, it was written to do what was required at the time.
That's no reason to say it shouldn't be improved and built upon.
As for it not being DOS anymore, if somebody writes an OS, that looks like
DOS, and to all intents and purposes responds to the user as DOS does, it
doesn't matter if it's *really* DOS, or a supa-dupa new OS pretending to be
DOS.
People have suggested running an emulator, and that's fine. It may well act
and behave completely like DOS. I just don't see why I should have to have 2
OSs for an enhanced DOS.
As for why it should be worse than anything else... Are you implying that
the other 'well-tested' OSs are perfect ? There goes my belief in innovation
and technological advancement then.
Michael.
- Raw text -