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

[Gary Korenek]

In article <6724 at ficc.uu.net>, peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <6723 at ficc.uu.net> korenek at ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes:
> > 8.  The point to all this:  companies take massive gambles with new
> >     products.  If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS,
> >     we would not even have what we have today.
> 
> No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other
> decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better.

    So why hasn't something better than MS-DOS been developed despite
MS-DOS?  I say it's because other companies waited to see if the IBM-PC
and MS-DOS would live or die (thus letting IBM and MS take the big risk).
Lo-and behold, it lived!  By the the time MS-DOS took hold it was too late
to go against it.

    BTW I'd like a multi-tasking O.S. (like UNIX), a VGA-quality color
display, a 100-meg. hard disk, a user interface like the Apple Macintosh,
a throughput of a 33-MHz memory-and-disk cached 386 system, at a price that
an "ordinary guy" can afford ($2000 is my threshold of pain).  Also there
must be an infinite ;^) supply of software available.  I should not have to
hold degrees in Electrical and Software Engineering to be able to
configure and use the machine.  I should not have to spend hours showing
my wife "the ropes" so she can enter a letter, format it, and print it.
If I run a Flight Simulator game it should be like I'm flying the plane,
not like I'm sitting at a PC playing a game.

     The next breakthrough in personal computers (hardware, o.s.es, and
applications software) will be the introduction of systems like I describe
above at a price that is more reasonable than 5 or 10K.  I'm waiting...

-- 
Gary Korenek    (korenek at ficc.uu.net)    |          This space
Ferranti International Controls Corp.    |         intentionally 
Sugar Land, Texas       (713)274-5357    |          left blank