From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:10:43 GMT

In article <mch.716190515@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> mch@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Michael Hermann) writes:
> 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".

Not nearly as much.

I was using multiuser multitasking CP/M in 1981.

I was using a CP/M clone that was multiuser multitasking multiprocessing
with UNIX-style hierarchical directories and a UNIX-style shell in 1979.

CP/M was already a better O/S when MS-DOS was being written. It wasn't
perfect, but at least there were versions that provided all O/S functions.

> >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.

Me too.

That's why I don't like having to buy add-ons that don't work very well
with each other to get basic capabilities that I need.

> This is because I am not good in
> memorizing a lot of different commands etc.

Then you shoulda got a Mac.

> 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. 

Except that there still isn't a single standard graphics interface, so you
have to juggle drivers and modes. You shoulda got a Mac.

Am I really saying that? Yes. If you don't want to have to know all sorts of
dumb details, then you should get a Mac, because anything else (including DOS)
forces you to.

> >> 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?

That they don't know that other systems don't cause as much hassle? That
they can't afford anything better, because IBM screwed up back in 1981?

> 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.

There hasn't been another tool available.

> 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.

I don't believe that people don't need these features. They just haven't been
exposed to them. When they are, they suddenly become essential. Look at the
whole Windows phenomenon... Windows is a pretty poor excuse for an O/S, but
it's selling like hotcakes. And Microsoft is running Apple's ads.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers