61–70 of 78 posts
Feels like we remember MS-DOS as simple because it fit the time. One user, limited hardware, not much going on in the background. As soon as you try to add multitasking, networking, or even basic isolation, that simplicity doesn’t really hold up.
Remember desqview?
GEOS was pretty cool too - amazing what you can fit in 64K if use a big enough hammer :-D
Not a fan of the pre-collapsed sections of an article. I was wondering where the text was.
I'm very sorry about that, we're testing this system as it's a brand new UI; we had left it closed not to overwhelm people, but we can leave it open by default if needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not match my memory at all. Booting my family’s 386, even into DOS, was a minutes-long affair involving memory tests and messages like “loading HIMEM.SYS”.
You're thinking 10 years too late. The TRS-80, C64, Apple ][ all booted in seconds.
Not a fan of the pre-collapsed sections of an article. I was wondering where the text was.
I'm very sorry about that, we're testing this system as it's a brand new UI; we had left it closed not to overwhelm people, but we can leave it open by default if needed.
> This is a major release of Windows and, similarly to the previous one [ep 10], it is not a complete operating system, but it’s simply a graphical user shell that is meant to be run on top of MS-DOS; thus, it inherently gains its limitations, albeit the developers had time to fix some things with this release, as well as add new features such as icons on the desktop and keyboard shortcuts. This is largely untrue. Wh…
The problem with all these arguments is that DOS extenders of the day used to do the same, or more. Do you call DOS extenders "operating systems not shells" too ? On one hand you have that the technical answer to the above question is likely "yes". DOS is so simple that any non-trivial application likely qualifies as an operating system. Implementing some kind of virtual memory support is almost a given, and process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very sorry about that, we're testing this system as it's a brand new UI; we had left it closed not to overwhelm people, but we can leave it open by default if needed.
Heya, while you're taking feedback, the link in "If you haven’t read OS/2’s side yet, you can do so by either scrolling the page up (on bigger screens), or clicking here." doesn't do anything for me when clicked. It's also not immediately obvious that the OS/2 article is in the upper-right and needs to be clicked again. Why not link to that article straightaway? :)