| Future of DOS:
At first, many people would answer saying that DOS has no future. It has seen
it's heyday and now it's up to high-resolution GUI's (Graphic User-Interfaces
- e.g. Windows 95) to lead the operating system pack. But let's not be too quick
to dismiss it. There are many reasons why DOS is an essential part of many of
today's finest systems.
Talk to mainstream computer industry "specialists" and they'd have
you believe that there is no longer any place for it. Why? Because they don't
understand the special speed and performance requirements unique to systems
other than "supercomputers with neuro-networking". I'm talking about
the many hundreds of thousands of users that depend on older systems to support
their businesses. Low-tech industries rely heavily on computers with old versions
of DOS installed on them. The average "business person" here doesn't
need anything better than a 486SX with 8MB of RAM to run their MS-DOS based
accounting program. This shouldn't be made redundant just because DOS is so-called
"outdated". This is also where the highest resistance to the removal
of DOS has come from.
Despite this, many people believe that old DOS programs are becoming redundant
because they are not Y2K compliant. But I say that DOS programs are simplistic
by nature and can easily be patched to be compatible. Even that seems more sensible
than installing Windows and taking up copious quantities of HD space with utilities
that have a hundred times more features than you'll ever figure out, let alone
use. Don't even get me started on the redundant registry entries and .dll files
that remain after 'removing' shareware and evaluation software on Win95. You
won't get any of that in DOS!
Win95 and DOS can be compared to bank notes and coin-change respectively. Win95
caters for the multiuser/multitasking system which has convenience similar to
the spending of large bank notes. DOS caters for the single-task user without
the need of extraneous functions and add-ons. Like coins, DOS adds up for too
many individuals not to have a large economic impact if it were removed.
One of the great 'new features' of Win95 is it's Recycle Bin (thanks Mac!).
But if it's so great, what does a user do if he or she wants to recover a file
after having emptied the bin? Nothing? Tough luck? Nope. DOS to the rescue!
The user simply needs to 'Restart in MS-DOS mode', type in and confirm the LOCK
command, go to the directory where the file was stored (or 'c:\recycled') and
undelete it using DOS v6.2x's old UNDELETE.EXE (remember: restart the computer
or type in UNLOCK to proceed safely). Conclusion: Windows couldn't have been
used to retrieve that 'permenantely' deleted file without using extraneous software
(eg. Norton Utilities).
Okay, so I've been heavy-handed about my support for DOS over Windows. Sue
me, I like it - it's my 'oldschool'. ;) Although...
Many people support DOS in that they perceive it to be a magical operating
system that is just perfect for games. Well I have a challenge for them - TRY
PROGRAMMING FOR IT! I'll bet money that half the reason why Interplay's relatively
new game "DTUM" didn't ship with network options was simply because
it is a DOS game and they would have had to do the bulk of the work themselves.
Simply put: if Microsoft wants to write network code for game developers (via
Direct Play) or add support to most if not all sound cards (Direct Sound), a
designer would be foolish not to take advantage of it. Thus guaranteeing MS
role in the games market. Even the mighty Quake(TM) released Windows/OpenGL
versions (sell out? - you decide).
Two factors determine the user's productivity: how long it takes to tell the
computer to do something, and how long the computer takes to do it. The former
is largely dependent on how you've customized your system with shortcuts, macros,
and AutoLISP routines and the platform is not particularly relevant. The latter
is partly dependent on your choice of platform - any kind of Windows inevitably
suffers compared with DOS. Why? Because DOS remains on a lower user level compared
to Win95 and thus keeps more of the system's resources free.
Even Windows 98 - the most recent operating system released by Microsoft to
date retains elements of DOS for users - obviously Microsoft recognises the
great need for it. These elements, however, aren't pure DOS. They're part of
Win95/98. A shell (pardon the pun) of its former self if you will. The question
is, will Win98 be able to run without these elements? One of the intriguing
questions being asked today since the discovery that Win95 works with DR-DOS
7.01, is how dependent on DOS is/was Win95? I would have called this myth until
I went to fix a Win95 problem and by accident discovered that Win95 appears
and runs on top of DOS.
So was it, in fact, essential for Microsoft to retain DOS? Was Win95 already
so intricately (/technically) dependent on DOS that the Win98 upgrade wouldn't
work without it? Probably not, although speculation is widespread.
I believe that DOS will remain for a few years to come at least. Sentimentality
alone can't keep it around forever though and it's only a matter of time before
somebody finds a way of phasing it out completely. But not without meeting resistance
from individuals for which DOS provides an efficient service. As a DOS junkie,
I find it's faster to type many commands or use batch files than having to click
and move files around in Windows. What can I say? The mouse slows me down and
I think 'user-friendliness' is a sham.
Postscript:
I know what many of you are thinking and I agree: MS OS's suck, get Linux.
=)
Bibliography:
BOOKS:
| Author(s): |
Title: |
Publisher: |
| Gookin, Dan |
DOS for Dummies (3rd Ed) |
IDG Books International |
| Brown, Margaret |
Learning DOS & Windows |
DDC Publishing |
| Edstrom, Jennifer |
Barbarians Led by Bill Gates |
Henry Holt & Company |
| Erwin, Robynne |
User Friendly |
Wallace Bradely Printers |
| Jamsa, Kris A |
DOS : The Complete Reference |
Osborne McGraw-Hill |
URLS:
| 
