From: rbrager@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rbrager)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: DOS is dead.
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:11:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Apr16.171636.23770@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, by dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch):
> In article <komarimf.703431575@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski) writes:
>>
>>I think Russ's point is that people will stop buying DOS in favor of a
>>real operating system, be it OS/2, UNIX, or NT.  I would not be so 
>>optimistic about DOS's demise tho.  Maybe 2-3 years and most development
>>for DOS-based platforms will stop.

It would be nice if this were true. I would like to see one that had
multi-tasking and virtual memory management and cost < $150.

Most new compter buyers don't care a wit about what OS the hardware
uses.  They are interested in what applications programs the overall
system can support.  The huge MessyDOS base of applications will asure
a long future for MS-DOS.  In the early 60's IBM moved from IBSYS to
OS/360 and very nearly lost the market.  From that time on, it has been
evolution not revolution!  For every new OS there will be a group of
affectionados; but only the OS's that are adopted by the Fortune 50
Companies will eventually be adopted by the masses.


Yes, the REAL UNIX's are expensive, but they are also multi-user,
multi-tasking with almost bug free utilities.  From my AT&T 730
terminal I am frequently connected to three separate systems at the
same time (actively on one and monitoring processes on others).
 
> 
> Hardly any people buy operating systems.  The only one I've ever bought was
> the DOS 5 upgrade; in every other case, the OS has come with the machine,
> and usually isn't worth the trouble to change.  (The DOS 5 change was only 
> worthwhile because it cost about $25, as part of a site license.)
> 
> This makes it seem very unlikely that people will stop buying DOS:  that would
> require the clone makers to start distributing a different OS on their
> machines, and nobody but IBM is brash (stupid?) enough to do that.
> 
> It's also true that people hardly ever buy new software.  I bought new
> packages for the first couple of years of owning a PC, but since 1987,
> have only bought one or two more.  The rest of my software

I've had the same experience.

> spending has been on upgrades.  Software vendors know they can keep making
> lots of money by selling incremental upgrades to their packages every year;
> they'll port to other OS's if there's enough demand (e.g. for something
> like WordPerfect), but they'll never forget their big installed base
> of DOS users who can be milked every year for another upgrade.

Very true.
> 
> That still leaves the possibility that all the development will happen on
> a different OS, and DOS will just get the ports.  I'd say that's possible,
> but quite unlikely.  With so many more DOS machines and DOS programmers
> around than for any competing OS, it doesn't make economic sense.
> Furthermore, for anything but niche development, there's a wider variety of 
> development tools available for DOS than for any other OS, and they're much 
> cheaper.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch

Bob Rager

Won't say what my first system was but it had a patch panel.
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.programmer:5318 alt.msdos.programmer:1136