Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/15/23:52:13
In article <37dfba17 DOT 26621229 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net>,
Michael Kearns <michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
>>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.
No, you don't run dos emulation to emulate that part, you run it
so you can execute the applications. DOSemu in fact doesn't
emulate dos, it runs a real copy of DOS which just gives you
a C> prompt. The point is that apps do all the work on DOS,
so to improve it you need better apps. Otherwise you just
get a prettier C>.
>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.
Why not? The point is to run apps and with more OSs you can run more
apps. Have you seen VMware? You can run them all at once.
>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.
There have been advances in manufacturing and hardware that have vastly
changed what you can afford to put on your desktop, and many once
proprietary concepts have been rewritten in cheap or free versions
but there haven't been many really new ideas in operating systems
in 15 or 20 years or so unless you count mouse-pointing.
Les Mikesell
les AT mcs DOT com
- Raw text -