Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/12/19/14:06:42
I do take your point. Microsoft have done wonders for the PC - But Windows
is not the be all and end all. There is still a need for the likes of DOS.
Sometimes all that 'user friendliness just gets in the way - Like I said, we
just can't certify it.
I am using Windows Outlook Express to write this reply and I use Windows to
host my DJGPP development. I did have 2000 installed but it caused so much
problems for me that I went back to '98 - It was simply overkill and not as
stable as I had been led to believe. Launching Dr. Watson where a 'blue
screen of death' would have appeared under '98 does nothing for me. Crashing
during boot and telling me to contact my system administrator was the last
straw!
I am not about to ditch Windows - I use it more than DOS! but that does not
mean that it is better than DOS in every respect. Sometimes it is nice to be
in control of the machine, sometimes it is essential.
Tim
"dragonsong" <net DOT aros AT sueko> wrote in message
news:aKy%5.3400$cb1 DOT 498764 AT news DOT uswest DOT net...
>
> "Tim Nicholson" <djgpp_mail AT gizzy DOT co DOT uk> wrote in message
> news:91lo3k$6t2$1 AT neptunium DOT btinternet DOT com...
> > My company had abandoned windows as a viable platform for any software
> that
> > has to be certified as being 'fit for form and function' The totally
> > unpredictable nature of the whole Windows family (Including Win 2000)
> makes
> > it impossible to get any form of certification from the bodies that
> regulate
> > our industry (Aerospace).
>
> I don't doubt it. In fact I'm surprised an OS like Unix (or Linux) wasn't
> chosen in its place...?
>
> > Contrary to popular believe, Windows 2000 is extremely unstable and
could
> > never be used for any form of critical system.
>
> And contrary to popular belief, Bill Gates is not the devil. ;}
>
> > DOS, due to its deterministic nature is a dream when it comes to proving
> > what is happening on and instruction by instruction basis - DOS has a
long
> > life left in it and, now that packages like DJGPP are utilising the full
> > power of the machine (In general DOS code runs much faster than any C++
> > equivalent for Windows, simply because it has 100% of the processors
> > attention), I think that more and more bespoke software writers will
move
> > back to a stable world where GPF's are the fault of the programmer and
not
> > some virtual machine that has more bugs than the average ants nest.
> >
> > Long Live DOS
>
> Long live DOS. I'll always think fondly of my own DOS days. I work in IT
and
> designed some utilities to test network performance on a Win95 machine
using
> a DOS boot disk. Why DOS? Because I cut out the possibility that something
> in Windows is causing a machine's network woes. DOS is a very clean, safe,
> stable, neutral (as opposed to user-friendly Win* or
administrator-friendly
> *nix) environment.
>
> (rant mode on)
>
> On the other hand, I'm probably never going to run Office 2000 in DOS, I'm
> probably never going to play Unreal Tournament in DOS, and I'm almost
> definitely never going to multi-task my NoteTab (with 3 separate .txt docs
> open), my e-mail, 6 instances of Internet Explorer, and calculator all at
> once in DOS. And that's just software. They don't make DOS device drivers
> for half the hardware I'm using, presently.
>
> DOS isn't a multi-user networked operating system, either. And who said
> having 100% of the processor's attention is a *good* thing, anyhow? I also
> remember fondly having to hit RESET my fair share of times back in DOS
> because some runaway app did exactly that. Thank God for Ctrl+Alt+Del and
> Task Manager. Better a GPF in one application than losing my work in all
of
> them.
>
> DOS has its place. Win2k has its place. MacOS has its place. Unix has its
> place. BeOS is really neat-looking. I don't know what the current trend is
> for programmers in sectors where stability is priority 1, but I'd be
willing
> to bet there are just as many programmers whose priority 1 is usability
and
> a large potential market.
>
> And yes, Win2k is buggy. I gasp in surprise. I think there was a book
> written once - it was called "The Mythical Man Month" - that made some
> points on how large-scale programming endeavors are generally doomed to be
> flawed in at least some scope. I don't blame Microsoft. I blame the fact
> that it was programmed by human beings. (I don't envy them. It must be the
> least respected yet most demanding job on earth.)
>
> (rant mode off)
>
> Anyways, I'm done playing devil's advocate for today. I'm sure this isn't
> the proper forum to be taking up that flag, anyhow. ;) The amount of
> traffic in this group just goes to show how popular DOS still is - which
> makes me happy, you happy, everyone happy. :)
>
> Long live the freedom to choose.
>
>
> David Frauzel
> dragon AT weathersong DOT net
>
>
>
- Raw text -