Message-Id:	<199703202200.RAA09813@keeper.albany.net>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
From:	"James Lefavour" <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
To:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:57:49 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
Reply-to:	jamesl AT albany DOT net
In-reply-to:	<3331A672.9D@blackmagic.tait.co.nz>

> James Lefavour wrote:
> > So we aren't just talking games here - there is useful software that
> > is available only for the M$ Windoes environments. We will need to
> > keep that in mind for the future - how about modelling after the
> > XWindows setup - make the OS 32 bit command line, and have a GUI
> > layer float over that?
> 
> That is how I believe a gui should relate to an os, an OPTIONAL layer
> that sits on top, rather than a required monolithic giant that hides the
> os from those who want to see it (for those who don't, that's what a
> gui's for in the first place).
> 
> Bill
> -- 
> Leave others their otherness.

Precisely.  That way even users of speech synthesis software and the 
like would have access to the full power of the OS, and I think that 
everyone would like this solution (anyone who disagrees with this 
statement, feel free to speak up). Of course, a 32-bit OS wouldn't 
work on a 286 or earlier, but we would still continue to support the 
286 market with the 16-bit OD.

And, we could develop the 16-bit OD in the same direction, with a GUI 
layer (for those who want it) that could (maybe?) handle the win3.1 
programs (on appropriate hardware). Anybody? For everyone, the 
command line would always be available, and all features of the OS 
would be available from it (except the GUI specific ones, that is).

If the interface (GUI) is customizable enough, we could even (easily) 
win over the W95/W97 users! As if that would be difficult <g>

Really, any thoughts? Anyone?

Jim

jamesl AT albany DOT net - http://www.albany.net/~jamesl/

- Raw text -