delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/17/10:29:26

From: see DOT sig AT end DOT of DOT post (I Hate SPAM)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: An updated DOS - Please discuss
References: <37d7913a DOT 10901976 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net>
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.1 OS/2)
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <98qE3.4$Wr.5111@typhoon2.gnilink.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:05:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.210.37
X-Trace: typhoon2.gnilink.net 937569925 151.204.210.37 (Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:05:25 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:05:25 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:01:32 GMT, Michael Kearns
<michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> wrote:

>I'm curious to know if anyone like myself thinks it could be enhanced to
>provide a suitable OS for modern PCs. Windows and Linux are both fine if
>that's what you want - I have no qualms with that.

We've been thinking along the same lines.

>The idea is to retain the whole 'feel' of DOS, whilst providing enhancements
>like: 64Bit Filesystem with proper long filenames, while providing backwards
>compatibility through the IO services. Multitasking and TCP/IP built into
>the 'kernel'. Additional API's provided for graphics and sound as a standard
>(maybe adopt Allegro or Scitechs MGL). A better memory model (this could
>cause compatibility difficulties).

While I'm no where near talented enough to implement it, yes it could
be done. But what would it do to the kernel??
One of DOS's key features for me is simplicity. 3 files required to
run DOS. 2 more files to start it on a bare drive. One or 2 more to
begin utilizing extended memory. About 7 commands you really need
to know to work with it. All on a floppy with room to spare. All with
extremely minimal configuration.
In reading the postings which make up this thread, I've seen a lot of
advocacy for using Linux/DOSEMU, winnt command line, etc. The point is
being missed - you need to go thru a *relatively* complicated install
procedure before you get to the point where the goal is achieved. I
say "relatively" because nothing yet beats
        fdisk
        reboot
        format c: /s
for an install. Nothing else needed, the balance of DOS is just utils.

I use a lot of OS's - my desktop is OS/2, I run Netware and Linux servers,
DesqView (awesome!), I fight with winxx all day on other people's machines,
I even have a Plan9 system which I toy with. NONE of them have the
simplicity or speed of DOS. Most OS snobs call DOS a lame system, but
the simplicity/functionality tradeoff is enormous. I use DOS for
robot machines - now that 486's are extremely cheap, it's easy to have
a DOS mail server, a DOS fax server, a DOS print server, a DOS process
scheduler, each running on it's own machine over some type of network
(I currently have all of this using a combination of 386's and 486's
built from spare parts).

Rethink DOS - dump DPMI (too complicated), move to flat real mode,
implement FAT32 (already done and documented) with long file names
and large disk access, you're modern. TCP/IP can remain device
driven, as can multitasking - both have been done quite well in the
past (FTP Software's PC/TCP, QuarterDeck's DesqView) but suffered
from the 640k limit.

:)

--
to reply via email, I am 76747 dot 2012 at compuserve dot com
Hit any user to continue.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019