Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Compatibility woes / deprecation (Miscellaneous)

posted by marcov(R), 15.02.2009, 13:01

> > not win9x system software which was redundant after migrating from w9x.
> > When I moved to NT (w2k), I mostly cleared out old dos utility
> programs,
> > partially also because I gave up resistance against LFN)
> First of all, many DOS apps support LFNs (e.g. some FreeDOS utils: find,
> more, FreeCom, etc.) as well as all DJGPP v2 apps by default.

Under NT?

> Secondly, you are indeed naive if you think XP can run all your old software.

Maybe. But ignorance is bliss sometimes. If I don't know it, I apparently don't use it.

> There are indeed a lot of Win9x users, but XP was
> forced down our throats,

That's life. IMHO not different when your favourite kind of crisps goes out of the supermarket because not enough people bought it.

> Other extras (Unicode) were just icing
> on the cake as most developers don't use them.

Unicode is a major demand from customers, and has been so for years. It partially makes life easier for developers because some of the burdens of charsets/codepages (though not all) disappear.

> XP has now
> been around longer than that, and I never see any new computers with XP
> installed anymore.

Vista % in the corporate world is 4%. You bet that XP installs are done there.

> So if you think XP is so stable, you are in for a surprise.

I never said XP. I was talking about NT. And XP is just a minor notch after 2k for me, an OS btw that I have used longer than XP. Probably if I didn't strictly need 32-bit XP for work, I would already run Vista 64-bit. (I actually own it)

Btw, the app I missed most initially was QEdit.

> It will be dropped just like perfectly acceptable OSes before
> it. Then you're screwed.

No, you adapt, update or clear out old junk. Life is not stasis.

(calling the other targets names skipped. It was just an illustration of multiple targets demanding attention)

> > Unix by linux/bsd/osx whatever.
> Linux has been around since 1991, and the *BSD family since 1993 or so.

(before the BSD fragmentation, people used just, uh, BSD. 4.4BSD or i386BSD)

> So they've had a lot longer time to build (than FreeDOS, for example).

Well, they had network running right from the start :-) Actually 4.2BSD hosted the first implementation of TCP/IP :-)

Anyway, I'm going to conclude this discussion, and here is my conclusion:

Seriously, I think the main difference is that the Unix heritage was simply more technically viable than the Dos heritage.

However, more importantly, most of the people that stayed were refuseniks, minimalists etc, complaining how a perfectly good OS was canceled (and some continue to this day :-) And when the free ride was over, most of them moved on.

While the Unix people (and Unix is not perfect IMHO) had their crisises too (the BSD world was hit hard by the AT&T lawsuits, Linux had to start from scratch), they simply started working.

In earlier msgs I've already told you that one of the reasons the Unix stuff goes ahead so much faster, is because the feedback/users ratio is the highest for *nix. (less for Linux/i386, higher for the rest). It is so for all "weird" targets (including the Haiku's and the rest above, Commercial or not), except former mainstream ones like dos and w9x.

If you really want to further either one of those, do something that fixes that. Learning from OS/2 experience (a mainstream platform too, though only for about a year), an archival group and hordes of devels will help.


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15297 Postings in 1378 Threads, 254 registered users, 11 users online (0 registered, 11 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum