From: michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk (Michael Kearns)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: An updated DOS - Please discuss
Organization: none
Message-ID: <37dfba17.26621229@news-reader.bt.net>
References: <37d7913a DOT 10901976 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net> <37d9bd34 DOT 955844 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net> <7rfieg$70a$1 AT Mars DOT mcs DOT net> <37ddafe0 DOT 858354 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net> <7rks8h$1llt$1 AT Mars DOT mcs DOT net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:29:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.75.234.2
X-Trace: newreader.ukcore.bt.net 937409427 194.75.234.2 (Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:30:27 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:30:27 BST
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On 14 Sep 1999 02:08:01 -0500, les AT Mars DOT mcs DOT net (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:

>In article <37ddafe0 DOT 858354 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net>,
>Michael Kearns <michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
>
>>I could quite happily run a DOS emulation under Windows (any variety),
>>Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS and probably quite a few other OSs. I don't want that.
>>I want DOS, by itself, with enhanced functionality. Simple.
>
>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.

The whole point of DOS at the time of it's conception, was that it was the
OS for the x86. (There may have been a few others, I don't know). Point
being, it was written to do what was required at the time.

That's no reason to say it shouldn't be improved and built upon.

As for it not being DOS anymore, if somebody writes an OS, that looks like
DOS, and to all intents and purposes responds to the user as DOS does, it
doesn't matter if it's *really* DOS, or a supa-dupa new OS pretending to be
DOS. 

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.

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.

Michael.