From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:46:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.143459.1267@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu>  writes:
>
>>If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
>>OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has  
>features
>>superior to MS-DOS?
>
>
>Because Microsoft has such a lock on the market that such an OS simply  
>cannot sell well.  DR DOS seems an able competitor to DOS, yet it has a  
>miniscule market share.  


	To be fair to MS, DRDOS isn't perfect.

	First off, it's shell sucks.  Dosshell may be bad, but
	ViewMax is worse.  
	
	Second, it's slower.  Not much, but noticibly.  

	Third, floppy access is abominable.

	Fourth, it has problems with interrupts.  On the notebook
	I'm sitting at, I can send and recieve files at 9600 baid
	using Zmodem getting about 936 cps.  It is running DOS5
	because when I want to send or recieve files at 9600
	on this machine (8250, since it's a notebook) I must boot
	the machine with DOS5 and NOT DRDOS6.  (Otherwise, it's
	*exactly* the same--stacker3.0, win3.1, pcplus4win, or
	telemate for DOS) because if I boot DRDOS I get CRC errors
	that result from UART overflows.  

	Fifth, it's setup/install program is junk.

	Sixth, it's a bit more hardware dependant than DOS5.  There 
	are systems that for some unknown reason DRDOS runs *miserably* 
	slow on. 

	Seventh, it's documentation is lousy.  Especially for it's
	special features, which are some of it's selling points.

	Eigth, and finally, it is harder to find in stores, and it is
	often equal or greater in price.  (DRDOS6, for instance, was $20
	more than DOS5 for quite awhile.  Recently, the situation has
	reversed slightly).


	I use it anyway, because other than the file transfer problem
	it's better than DOS5.  FOR ME.  So when I want to send files, I use
	a bootup program to swap the autoexecs and the system files.


>it can provide high-quality services without the need for competition.   
>Microsoft has clearly not done this (DOS is poor), so it's the  
>devil-incarnate.  :)


	Microsoft has tried repeatedly to move people away from DOS.
	DOS was *perfect* for the machine it was written for--small, 
	simple.  People refuse to move.  Microsoft offers Xenix.  tough.
	Offers OS/2.  Tough.  Offers NT--how well do you think it will
	do with people who are actually still using DOS?

	IBM offers OS/2 2.0 and it's not doing so well (compared to
	DOS or Windows sales).  It *IS* a better DOS than DOS--
	but people wont move. 

	DOS is the Intel form of UNIX.  Even if something better is
	offered, people will deny that it is better.  They will stick
	with what they know.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3733 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11921