From: georged@sequent.com (George Dolbier)
Subject: Re: THE MOST TASTELESS OS (MSDOS)
Keywords: Unknown
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.231603.3615@darwin.ntu.edu.au> nunn@nutmeg.cs.ntu.edu.au (JsNO  BAR---NUNN) writes:

Your-a preachin' to d quier brother.

But you forget. MSDOS is NOT an operating system. It is a very good
SYSTEM MONITOR!! 
>
>                                   MeSsyDOS
>                                   --------
>                        By Jason Nunn (JsNO BAR---NUNN)
>
>  Back when PC's first came out; I would have considered MSDOS an excellent
>little Operating system (I was 9 you see). The PC back then was a 8088 Intel
>chip with 64K of ram, a tape drive and a few NEC and Motorola drivers throwen
>in. With the memory it was running on, no system could have been more easy
>to install, easy to use and been more compatable.
>  Now days. We have MeSsyDOS running on Mini computers (virtually). With
>the unnessary constraints that MeSsyDOS applies (hence called messy),
>"Messy" is very inefficient, and only good for the machines it was built for.
>
>
>                                The Bad points.
>                                ---------------
>
>  I can think of no good points about MeSsyDOS, only that it can be sqeezed
>on to 2 or 3 disks. The following is a list of bad points about MSDOS.
> Note that this list is not exhaustive.
>
>MULTITASKING:
>-------------
>  MSDOS can't do multitasking, it needs mummy Windows to help it, and
>even with windows it can't do it very well. For example, try firing up a
>shell and loading a application in it. See how well it multitasks then.
>Even with your multitasking setting set on full welt, you still can't
>do it.

Msdos was never designed to do multitasking. It was never part of the "spec".
>
>MSDOS uses BIOS.
>----------------
> Back then, BIOS was extremely useful. It was needed to get over the
>compatability problems with a whole myriad of different hardware that
>went in PC's. Back then, things were "nearly 100% compatable". Now days,
>You will find that most (if not all) the brand new PC's of every manufacturer
>are compatable to the bare metal. Take MINIX for example, It talks to the
>bare metal and doesn't need BIOS to help it, and it will run on just about
>any modern PC now, imperative.
> The fact is, BIOS is made to be compatable, not fast and efficient. I would
>even bet money on the code being 16 bit (and thats including latest versions).
>
> Here a few summary points about BIOS:
>
> - BIOS is a pig,
> - BIOS is a pig,
> - BIOS is a pig and
> - BIOS is a pig.
>
>
>    - MSDOS has got the worst Memory manager,
And again. MSDOS does not DO any memory management.
>
>  I don't know of any OS that forces unnessary memory constraints on,
>itself. In Messy, we have conventional memory, we have High memory, we
>have extended memory and we a expanded memory.
>  On the modern machine (>= 386), memory is memory is memory. You have
> 2^32 address's of memory without changing your memory segments. Under
>a real operating system, if you have 4 MEG program, then you will be able to
>load the bastard into the 4MEGs of memory, not a problem. But with Messy,...
>oh-no forget it.
>
>  Not only that, but to manage this complex constraint is a clugg on your
>machine and consumes rather a lot of resources to maitain it. Did you know
>that a lot of people have got rich just by inventing ways of managing this
>better! (eg QEMM drivers).
Msdos does not clame to do ANY memory management.
>
>    - MSDOS has got a pretty bad file management system.    
>
> On the crispy outside, the MSDOS file system is about the best thing about
>MSDOS. But as you undo the wrapping, you will discover a sack of shit.
>For example, Messy maintains to 2 FAT tracks on a given disk. This is the
>most stupidest thing because if one is corrupted, how the heck do you know
>which one's correct?.  You either have 1 FAT or you have 3 FATs. basically,
>it makes me wonder what happens in the microsoft meetings sometimes.
>
> Secondly, It stores all the address pointers in one place, which to me,
>seems pretty stupid. The C-64's method (which I think is a romper room
>verion of CP/M), distributes it's pointers where the data is (it actually
>links blocks together that store a given file). At least that way, if you
>lose your data; you won't have any need for the pointers, but thats getting
>philosophical.
>
>
>CONCLUSION:
>
>  Microsoft!!....invent UNIX and make it free. The UNIX system is perfect,
>nothing bets UNIX. UNIX rules the world and UNIX was implemented properly!.
>If you can't do that, give us the source code for messy. At least that way,
>32 bits hackers can built it 32 bits.
I guess you have not really looked at the guts of unix have you.... 
You should not open yourself to snipers by comparing DOS to UNIX. They are
just not compareable.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     GET SET TAX DODGERS....It's JsNO BAR----NUNN (shit not him again :( )
>                                 DARWIN, NT
>  We need a another bloody Cyclone!!: (a) Need the rain,
>                                      (b) Put Darwin back on the map.
>          nunn@pandanus.cs.ntu.edu.au, nunn@nutmeg, nunn@calytrix
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc