🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41ga2g$llq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) wrote:
> my OS prof had a short list of things he said an OS had to be to be an
> OS.  he then showed how DOS failed to qualify on most of them.  in his
> opinion, DOS is a file system.

   the point of any OS is (mainly) to be a file system, and (secondly)
define the user interface. DOS did that. IMHO, DOS is a kickass file
system, but did a crummy job of defining UI by assigning cryptic commands
like /cd and DEL path/filename. This set a precedent of hard to use, text
based programs, while extremely fast (usually) were too diufficult to use.
THIS is why Windows (shittiest OS ever, with or without a 95 after it)
took hold. People needed a graphical precedent on their DOS machines, and
MS provided it. Nobody will support a PC on the basis of windows! it's
always "but DOS is faster than any Mac."
so there.

                                                                  -nilay
p.s. i would take a mac any day. to quote apple ads "it's how powerful the
computer makes you." yeah, right. i just like the UI.

-- 
http://puff.inc.net/~warsaw