🚀 go-pugleaf

raster@indirect.com (Charles Dye) wrote:

[snip]

>In fact, I'd like to do just that, out of sheer curiosity.  Is it still
>possible to get hold of DOS 1.x?  Granted, it's still copyrighted
>material, but I doubt MS has much hope of making further money off of it!
>(Rendered obsolete by all those later meaningless features and optimizations,
>dontcha know.)

I very much doubt anyone will sell you DOS 1.x ... occasionally you
see companies with stocks of, for example, 3.x, but these are becoming
few and far between. This is just one example of the almost universal
practice of refusing to sell the 'old and inferior' as soon as the
'new and improved' comes along... never mind that MegaFoobar V105
requires a machine twice as expensive as MegaFoobar V104, or that it
has twice as many bugs :-( . M$ is a notorious offender in this
category!

Although, in this /particular/ instance it would probably be best to
steer clear, as I recall that 1.x was missing a number of important
things that people have become used to, such as, say, subdirectories.

-Arinan
 __________  
/          \ 
| #     #  | 
| ##  # #  | The views of the Author are their own. Any sense
| # #  ##  | in the above document is incidental, and generally
| ##    #  | completely unintentional :-P
| # #   ## | 
| #     # #| Fake Life ID: Matt Francis
| #     #  | Email: gm78@dial.pipex.com
\__________/