[dead]
Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
21–30 of 78 posts
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#22Feels 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.
That does not mean that we need things to be as complex as they now are though.
Which feature do you want to get rid of? If you try out an OS like fuzix you'll have a blast and you'll also wonder how to do many things since it's got about 1 percent of all the modern features.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#23Fun fact, while Trower was the manager who got Windows moving, it was Gabe Newell who served as the lead developer of Windows versions 1, 2, and 3. Win95 was the first version he wasn’t really involved with. By that time, he was working on porting Doom to Windows.
Sorry, are we saying Valve Gabe Newell? That's blowing my mind from both timeline and area perspective.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#24But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
That was the slogan of OS/2 2.0. But by then where Windows 3.x was already out and in 386 Enhanced Mode, more than good enough. It also had the extra "escape hatch" of being able to quit to real DOS if a DOS box didn't work.
OS/2 1.x's DOS box was bad, with lots of limitations, which isn't good when most existing PC apps are DOS apps. As for GUI, well, lets call the Presentation Manager 1.x v Windows 2.x a no-score draw.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#25Fun fact, while Trower was the manager who got Windows moving, it was Gabe Newell who served as the lead developer of Windows versions 1, 2, and 3. Win95 was the first version he wasn’t really involved with. By that time, he was working on porting Doom to Windows.
Sorry, are we saying Valve Gabe Newell? That's blowing my mind from both timeline and area perspective.
He notably worked at Microsoft before founding Valve.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#26Fun fact, while Trower was the manager who got Windows moving, it was Gabe Newell who served as the lead developer of Windows versions 1, 2, and 3. Win95 was the first version he wasn’t really involved with. By that time, he was working on porting Doom to Windows.
Sorry, are we saying Valve Gabe Newell? That's blowing my mind from both timeline and area perspective.
Yup, where do you think he got the money to start Valve? :-)
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, are we saying Valve Gabe Newell? That's blowing my mind from both timeline and area perspective.
He notably worked at Microsoft before founding Valve.
I believe he’s confirmed that his time at Microsoft both gave him the money and the desire to make Valve and Steam.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#28Feels 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.
I was looking back to why I enjoyed computing so much more in the 80's and 90's compared to now, and of the many reasons, one of them was "No multitasking".
Or even "little multitasking" because while Windows had multitasking, we didn't have the HW to do too many things at the same time.
Right now we're on the crazy end of that spectrum. Every tab on your browser is potentially an application, and we multitask like crazy on it.
Do I want to go back to "No multitasking?" Not really. Or at least not all the time. But I definitely want to put barriers. Such as taking a minute to switch windows/applications.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#29Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#30Not a fan of the pre-collapsed sections of an article. I was wondering where the text was.