Date:	Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:00:23 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Your Mother <adalee AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu>
To:	"Kevin A. Pieckiel" <kapieckiel AT Harding DOT edu>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: 32bit DOS.
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SOL.3.94.970913172806.18053A-100000@taz>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.970914175449.13985A-100000@sendit.sendit.nodak.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0

OK, you guys are taking me a little too seriously here...  I don't mean we
should completely reinvent the wheel, I just mean we shouldn't have to use
the same exact thing, because that won't let us get anyhwere...  

OK, I'll come up with a real life example of why backwards compatibilty is
bad.  Today, I installed a six disc changer in my car.  Now, I really like
this changer (I've had it for a while, just moved it between cars) but I
got to thinking about it.  I really don't like the fact that the CDs have
to be upside down inside the changer, because you can't tell which CD is
which...  I was wondering why they would do something dumb like this as
opposed to having it right-side up, but then I realized that early
technology most likely dictated that the CDs had to be upside down, and
we've been stuck with it since because we have to remain standard.

In wanting to get rid of some backwards compatibility, I don't mean we'd
have to move to a completely new sytem, like DATs or MDs, but rather just
fix the little things that bother people.

I feel much the same way about DOS.  If OpenDOS achieves all of the things
it claims it will, it will be the greatest possible OS for single user
situations IMHO...  It, however is being dumb by placing the multi-tasking
outside of the kernel and still using EMM386, since this was the main
problem with DOS in the first place.

This is just my little opinion, feel free to flame me but don't expect a
reply. :)

  
  +--- --  --   -     -
  | [pHiXx/VorteX]
  : phixx AT usa DOT net

  :

  .

- Raw text -