Article View: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Article #4042Re: Teaching and Old Dog New Tricks
From: james M peterson
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 02:02
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 02:02
21 lines
1481 bytes
1481 bytes
><1990Dec16.071745.19811@NCoast.ORG> ramsey@NCoast.ORG (Cedric Ramsey) writes: >> >>If anybody can explain why DOS can't be enhanced, in a compatible way, >>without the excuse 'it was written for the 8088', >While on a similar subject, why does IBM say DOS can't be used for any >multitasking, yet, there were some "hidden" and "undocumented" interrupts, > >Robert Douglas Davis # Is reality real? Can you prove it? >cs202101@umbc5.umbc.edu # Can you write an algorythm to prove it? Some light (but expensive) reading of note: In the ms-dos encyclopedia there is some talk about the directions microsoft wanted to push dos vs. the directions its big mother wanted it to go. It seems that microsoft wanted to put in multi-tasking in 3.1 (??) but ibm wanted network support first - guess who won? It would make sense to have m-tasking first so that a network process could be loaded and run. All from memory - dos versions may vary.. jamesp@world.std.com 'Reality is not an industry standard'
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Dec18.020205.10271@world.std.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!jamespReferences:
<1990Dec16.071745.19811@NCoast.ORG> <4701@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!jamesp From: jamesp@world.std.com (james M peterson) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: Teaching and Old Dog New Tricks Message-ID: <1990Dec18.020205.10271@world.std.com> Date: 18 Dec 90 02:02:05 GMT References: <1990Dec16.071745.19811@NCoast.ORG> <4701@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> Distribution: usa Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 21