From: mch@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Michael Hermann)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Technical University of Munich, Germany
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:48:35 GMT

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>In article <mch.716033734@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> mch@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Michael Hermann) writes:
>>  ...
>> Why frightening? Few people have the money to buy programs
>> or computers which are of no use for them.

>Why is that relevant?

Because it indicates (for me) that IBM/PC and MS-DOS are useful
for the people who buy such s system.

>If IBM had chosen any other operating system for the
>PC the software and hardware for that system would be as cheap as DOS stuff
>is now... and I wouldn't have to tell people "sorry, you can't do that under
>DOS". 

Ok. Assume they had chosen CP/M (which was "standard" for low-end 
computers then):
Then you'd tell people now: "sorry, you can't do that under CP/M".

>An enormous amount of time and money has gone into repairing the
>deficiencies of DOS, and the result is still a mess.

Maybe I don't understand your point of view. I'll try to explain mine:
I (try to) use as few programs (including OS) as possible. And I try to
use the simplest one that do the job. This is because I am not good in
memorizing a lot of different commands etc. The majority of people I know
do the same (not all!). And if there are alternatives, I tend to get
the most widespread product (probably due to competition the cheapest, too).

>So does a CP/M system, just as well in most cases.

Agreed. I had used CP/M. Quite a time it DID all my jobs (text and programming).
As you might guess, I stayed with it as long as it fulfilled my needs.
Problems started when I had to layout some boards. There was no general
agreement about graphics hardware and I had problems to submit my GERBER-
files to a manufacturer, because we had differing disk-formats. IBM/PC and
MS-DOS "repaired" this. 

>...

>Other people who are currently using DOS would be more productive if they
>didn't have to live with the limitations of DOS. Sorry, you can't get there
>from here.

Then they should not use it. 

>> Most users I know don't care about the deficiencies
>> their hardware & software (ISA, DOS) certainly has,
>> as long as they get their job done w/o hassle. 

>And, with MS-DOS, they frequently can't.

Again, I don't understand why they use a system that 
does not do what they want. What does this behavior
prove?

If someone buys a product that does not fulfill his needs
and if he/she complains about that product then, I'd tend
to blame the person for buying the inadequate tool.

When I was a bit more idealistic in my younger days :), I
discussed this topic with customers and tried to show them
alternatives that might do better. But I learned, that they
were not willing to spend the time required for learning
something more powerful and expected that everything
(especially program support) should be free or at least
as cheap as some mass-producted program like MS-DOS. 

And when they realized that they could not get a hand-made
solution for nothing they suddenly found out that they 
could do with a cheap standard system as well. 

To summarize and get to an end:
I'm well aware that both the IBM/PC and MS/DR-DOS have lots
of deficiencies. If I don't need other features than the 
given, I just don't care.

Best regards,
Michael Hermann
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13644 comp.os.ms-windows.apps:2519 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:2792