From: ccb8m@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:53:14 GMT

In article <1hnj22INNkan@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.153620.13038@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>Most of the computer industry believes that Windows is not a worthwhile OS?
>>I wasn't aware of this.
>
>A great deal, lad.  Much of the industry has problems beleiving it's
>an OS at all, remember?
>
>>Sure it's an antique, but why is it broken?  It works just fine.  BTW, when
>>did this discussion shift from Windows to DOS?
>
>Since when didn't Windows require it?  They might as well be one in
>the same product, if you want to run Windows.
>
>And it's more than an antique.  It's an antique PROGRAM LOADER.  It's
>a BROKEN OS.  Period.  If you make an attempt to consider MS/DOS an
>OS, you fail.  That says it's broken.  Except millions of users have

I hate to say this, but... MS-DOS is an OS.  It certainly provides more
functionality than just a "program loader". (Do you mean linker/loader?)
It provides a tree structured filesystem, stream I/O and peripheral
management services.  It provides memory management, TSR support and
yes even Networking support :)

It's origins were CP/M and wayyyy back it was called QDOS, before
microcruft bought the rights to it (circa 1980).  Way back then, much
of the above functionality wasn't there.  Of course that level of
functionality wasn't available ANYWHERE for personal computers :)

Just because MS-DOS is an aging OS doesn't negate its contribution 
to computing history.

It was and still IS an OS...

>been using it instead of a real one for years.

"Real" one?  For "years"?  Keep technology in perspective, years ago
MS-DOS was pretty darn great.  Of course OS-9 was better :) though it
came in after CP/M.

*** The above refer to OS'es for Personal Computers, using mass produced
    "micro" processors, not "real" computers :) :).

>
>What was that millions of users argument?  Maybe we should all drop
>our Coherent/AmigaOS/OS-9/Plan 9 boxes and just run MS-DOS!  We'll

Quick Ralphie shoot me!  You'll get my OS9 box when you pry it from
my cold dead fingers... :)  Did Jerry really advocate MS-DOS in that
sense?

>stick a program that has user-writable subprograms under it, and we'll
>call it Windows!  NOT.  MS-DOS has problems.  Windows inherited them.
>OS/2 at least had the brains to realize how screwed up they were, as
>did NT, and decoupled the screwed up parts from the rest of the
>system.

Of course they have probably introduced NEW and Innovative screw-ups :)

>
>>And Plan 9 is supposed to replace Unix.  Does that mean that Unix is not
>>a worthwhile OS?
>
>Unix is, at least, considered by most to be an operating system, so
>it's got a headstart.  Unix does the job.  There are millions of
>people out there who are satisfied to run just enough to get the job
>done.
>
>One couldn't even lie and call most Unix systems efficient.  Does that
>make it not worthwhile?  No, of course not.  However, it is an
>operating system, doubtless.

Unix in a historical sense is the CP/M - MS-DOS for workstations...

>I'm not going to get into this any further, because I've said more
>than enough on the subject.  Suffice to say that one would call Unix
>and Plan 9 worthwhile because they are.

Circular reasoning works every time <chortle>.

>
>>It *was* always better, because Windows was moving 256-color graphics on an
>>800x600 screen, while the Amiga had 4 colors at 640x400.
>
>The air is getting thick, methinks...  In the end, this argument will
>yield nothing, as it has in the past.

Yep, time to take a shower :)  

Charles C. Bundy IV
ccb8m@virginia.edu