Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
blisscast.wordpress.com
Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#2But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#3MS-DOS was quite simple if you think about it.
Past that point complexity kept on increasing. Don't get me wrong - I use modern day linux, modern day ruby ... it's all fine. Modern computers are fast too. But at the same time I feel we lost simplicity along the way. Now this is even more noticable with microslop everywhere.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#4Feels 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.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#5But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
And yet it failed in the common user's perspective but I've seen many ATMs run it and those were usually the working ones without BSODs on them.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#6But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
If only every program worked out of the box... :')
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#7Feels 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 mean, when it came out, people didn't really need much of that
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#8MS-DOS was quite simple if you think about it. Past that point complexity kept on increasing. Don't get me wrong - I use modern day linux, modern day ruby ... it's all fine. Modern computers are fast too. But at the same time I feel we lost simplicity along the way. Now this is even more noticable with microslop everywhere.
Maybe that's the reason people are going back to older tech? Personally, I use an iPod and I find it's simple enough and does the job
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#9Feels 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.
Re: Only one side will be the true successor to MS-DOS – Windows 2.x
#10But OS/2 was a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
Well, technically Windows 2.1 (released May 1988) came before OS/2 1.1 (released October 1988). OS/2 1.0 was text-only. So at least for 5 months in 1998, Windows technically beat OS/2.
And OS/2 1.1 was very similar to Windows 2.1, so it's arguable if it was actually much better.
OS/2 1.2 was a massive leap though, not only beating Microsoft GUI wise by a whole year, they even implemented tons of advanced features that we didn't see until Windows 95.