Re: Not for me.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:39:28 -0600
Yaro Kasear <yaro@marupa.net> wrote:
> >
> I hate to rebreak it to you, but *MS-DOS* isn't around anymore. I
> believe there are at least two DOS implementations still active. But
> that wasn't my point. My point was even "modern" DOS implementations
> are woefully obsolete and outdated due to the central designs of DOS
> are archaic and were built around the idea PCs weren't going to get
> very powerful. As far as OS design goes, they made the design error
> of not making the OS that adaptible or "future-proof."
>
> When (U)EFI completely replaces BIOS THEN DOS will be completely
> dead. Right now it's just a horribly obsolete OS used by people
> afraid of kernels or enterprises that refuse to upgrade some of their
> infrastructure.
>
Yes, I'm aware that almost every kind of IT stuff that has ever been
designed probably still exists somewhere. I still have a working BBC
Micro, from 1984. I know of a computer with Windows 95 installed, whose
only purpose was to run a single piece of software in 'real' DOS mode
(i.e. not in a Win95 command prompt, which consumed too much of the
magic 640K). The computer hasn't been turned on for several years, and
hopefully the last of the products which needed to be aligned using the
proprietary DOS-based tool has been scrapped. It sits beside an NT 4.0
machine (neither are networked) which runs three obsolete video
digitisers, which in turn form part of the customer support for some
(hopefully also obsolete) cameras.
But these are relics, and will be thrown away soon: the number of people
using DOS must be a lot smaller than those using the least popular Linux
distribution. My point, as you saw, is that DOS as we once knew it no
longer exists in Windows but has evolved into a very powerful command
line.
--
Joe
Reply to: