IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <2526 at optilink.UUCP> cramer at optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <6615 at ficc.uu.net>, peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> # If this was the case then the Macintosh would be the computer everyone
> # feels disdain for. Making effective use of a DOS machine is much, much

> Missed all the nasty remarks about the "Macintoy" a while back?

See any from me? I tried to talk my own brother into buying one of the
things.

> # Largely because where the Mac is limited by its origins, DOS is limited
> # by deliberate malice on the part of IBM and Microsoft.

> I think a more accurate statement is that DOS is limited by its
> age.

Fiddlesticks, again. It's younger than UNIX, OS/9, MP/M, and a dozen other
operating systems that ran on the same or similar hardware.

> (Of course, Microsoft's approach to software doesn't excite
> me much either, but comparing DOS -- still largely limited by
> hardware compatibility problems from 1979 design requirements) to
> the Mac (five very fast years later) isn't particularly fair.

Right. Single-tasking was forced by a hardware design requirement. The
lack of ANY support for serial I/O was a hardware design requirement.
The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it
was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity
on the part of Gary Kildall).
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter at ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter at sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That particular mistake will not be repeated.  There are plenty of        'U`
 mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast at cs.vu.nl)