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 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.