- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: XMS
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 09:44:56
- Reply-to: email@example.com
> You made my point yet you don't realize it. Karl DEMANDED that he be
I realize you were making a similar point to my original, but there was a
slight difference. The reason OS/2 and later NT came into existance was to
overcome the architectural deficiencies of DOS. The fact that there was no
mass exodus to OS/2 in the late 80's IS proof that the vast majority of the
DOS users are happy and DOS solves their prroblem(s). My point to Karl, some
public, some private, was that there are, in fact, very few NOS users
capable of making the change he wanted. Within that subset I speculated that
it would be difficult to find someone interested enough to do it and own the
This is actually a re-hash of a thread from abt a year ago, re: the lament
of the loss of developers capable of enhancing/fixing/whatever to NOS to
other platforms. The ones that are left on DOS, with their Borland 2.x
compilers are going to have to figure out how to write code or live with the
legacy NOS, as it is.
BUT... at no time did I say, "DOS is evil" or was a piece of crap or 'rots
your brains' or Dos is dead or OS/2 forever etc etc. Just because someone
is perfectly happy running on DOS does not mean they're stupid, slow or
otherwise not with the program or have 'no imagination'. All those comments
serve to do is piss people off.
> Many times those of limited imagination have proposed Bill Gates' wealth
> is proof of the worthiness of MS-DOS and Windows. The technical merits
No, but a 99.9% market share means something. Can you say 'user acceptance'?
> MS-DOS works fine if you lack the imagination to expect any better
There you go again.
Neither Karl, nor any other DOS user was asking to be insulted. He was
asking abt, in essense, the future of NOS development on DOS. A valid
And with this rebuttal, I will drop out of this thread. After all, Karl was
asking abt who will do the changes, not who will not.