Re: The Mac is Dead! Long Live the Wintel PC! [was Re: Apple ahead of schedule]

In article <it2qd2p810f93en88ce8l64c3uupccp2e6@xxxxxxx>,
Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:27:13 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <vpepd2h9j97r0rpflchu8ijfivl1hdimv3@xxxxxxx>,
Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:58:04 GMT, Tim Adams
<teadams$2$0$0$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <hpbnd21n3qqbt5ono53b7kmrvfu3ml9d3t@xxxxxxx>,
Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:41:29 +0100, not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Hayes) wrote:

Mike <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <alangbaker-C54931.18550508082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <no-4FDCCA.21365208082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<1155086070.611254.286890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Chris Clement" <chris.clement@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Nope. DOS as an Operating System is long dead. Now it exists
only
within Windows, but not as an OS.

Well, it was never an OS, it was a DOS, Yes, there *is* a
difference.

So a "Disk Operating System" was never and "Operating System"?

Yes, exactly. A Disk Operating System operates the disks - and
that's
all that DOS directly controls.

DOS is command.com and it just happened to include interrupts to
access
disks as well as all the other hardware associated with a 1981
computer.

Actually, "DOS" is "command.com", "msdos.sys", and "io.sys" combined.
"command.com" is just the command interpreter (shell). msdos.sys and
io.sys are the "kernal".


I suspect DOS was called "Disk Operating System" to distinguish it
from
other OSs that didn't have any disk storage capabilities. A Microsoft
Marketing Move, no more no less, perhaps inspired by the original
name,
QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) although some might think QDOS
more apposite.

"QDOS" was indeed "Quick and Dirty Operating System", created by
Seattle Micro.

Microsoft bought it honestly from Seattle Micro, improved it, added
various user-level modules, and called it "MS-DOS" (Microsoft Disk
Operating System). They later licensed it to IBM, which called it
"IBM-DOS". Also, while we're at it, Microsoft also wrote Apple's
first BASIC language interpreter, as well as their own, and IBM's. Not
many Macdroids even know this, or want it known, for that matter.

They may also have written the first Apple structured BASIC, if I
remember correctly.

In fact, a BASIC interpreter was Microsoft's first successful venture
as a programming house. They sold it on paper-tape to "Personal
Computer" hobbyists who owned IMSAIs (the FIRST "personal computer",
Appleidiots' claims notwithstanding) and other pioneer "Personal
Computers".

Later on, Digital Rights didn't want to license it, so they cloned it
-- a "nicer" word for "backward-engineered it" (ran the b-code through
a disassembler, found out how each low-level call operated, then
re-wrote the assembly code differently, in such a way that no one
could say they "copied" it, using different addressing) and called it
"DR-DOS". Of course, Digital Rights did add a few goodies, like an
expanded command interpreter, pre-emptive multitasking, and improved
memory management. But basically, it was still a rip off of MS-DOS.
Many believe (and not without merit) it surpassed MS-DOS in elegance
and usability. Since I never used it, I cannot comment on it beyond
that.

I'd love to see your support for that claim. You might also want to
correct
your
information about the company that wrote Dr-DOS. It's NOT 'Digital
Rights'
but
'Digital Research Inc.'. You also might find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M
an interesting read.


~snip

Ok, so I got my history a little wrong. I apologize. However, I am
still substantially correct in saying that Microsoft does not steal
anything from anyone.

Well, if you ignore the other posts in this thread you can go on
pretending that's true.


And I never access wikipedia. It is nothing but an online resource
for "Newspeak", which I do not speak, or even desire to speak.

"Newspeak"?

Never read "1984", I see.

Sure I have.

It's just such an incredible linkage you're attempting to make that I
didn't imagine it possible.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
.

Relevant Pages