Windows XP: A requeim for DOS

[Vernon Frazee]

ZDNet Commentary, Windows XP: A requeim for DOS

[davidgsmith]

Hey Vern,
From the responses I read, it seems Mr Fixmer is the only one that sees any excitement about this!

He has to be one of those people who in times past was totally lost sitting there looking at a black screen with a C:\> sitting in front of him and wondering..."now what was that? cd or dc...dir or dr? , why does this have to use all these codes?" And as soon as 3.1 came around with the point and click he was in hog heaven!

But I don't begrudge him, he is just an 'end user' like most people and is really ignorant of how this box works, and just knows that it does....

Dave
P.S. I will always have at least one DOS machine around!

------------------
Windows Tips *** Help others less fortunate.

[Eeyore]

Enough to make me cry. I hope it crashes and dies. If XP takes over, no new hardware will be backwards compatible. Everything will be like trying to make an AGP video work with Windows 3.1. Or a 56kb Modem. Too many modems, sound cards, LAN cards and the like, are all PCI now. So if the old clunker developes a limp, it's hard to get a replacement.

Sort of like our cars. If a light burns out, you buy a new car, 'cause that lightbulb is no longer made.
------------------
My

Dennis
Politalk

[robwes]

HAL is watching

It will be a new challenge to run programs in virtual DOS machines.

[dacomputers]

Thanks Vern,

I read the article titled "Windows XP: A Requiem for DOS" and was going to respond online but it seems it's too late for me to do that. In the article Mr. Filmer implies that Apple's McIntosh was their first effort. In fact the first Apple came out in 1977, 4 years before IBM made the decision to include Bill's little program in their new PC. Apple was a well established company by 1981 when IBM decided to break into the personal computer market. Take a look at one of Apple's first ads from back then. It doesn't look much like their new Mac.
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/02/07.10.shtml

It's the archetecture of the PC more than Microsoft that has dictated the continued use of DOS. IBM tried to replace DOS, Bill, and a lot of others when they came out with the PS2 and OS, but they were unsuccessful primarily because OS was even buggier than Windows '95.

I regret the demise of DOS - Windows '95 did that - not because I believe it's a great operating system but because when we lost DOS we lost control over the computer environment. I know that doesn't mean much to computer users, but to we who have to fix these things, it's the loss of control that reduces our ability to determine the source of the problem.

Hang in there,

DA

[davidgsmith]

As Vern posted in this thread.... http://discussions.virtualdr.com/For...ML/002154.html

Next month is DOS's 21st birthday. How ironic.

Dave

------------------
Windows Tips *** Help others less fortunate.

[rmbox]

[zorroonecrow]

thats so sad

------------------
o4 breathalyzer is a safer lower drunk driving test in rhode island----out of the night when the moon is bright