Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!asuvax!ennews!stat!
david
From: da...@stat.com (David Dodell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: The Future of DV/DOS?
Message-ID: <NPB54B1w165w@stat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 93 11:25:46 MST
Reply-To: da...@stat.com (David Dodell)
Distribution: world
Organization: Stat Gateway Service, WB7TPY
Lines: 18
I have been thinking about what to do with our systems in the next few
months. OS 2.1 is about to be released, Windows NT, Unix .... all being
32 bit operating system.
I'm still "stuck" with DOS/DV at 16 bits. Anyone have any feelings about
migrating to the 32 bit packages? Or are their plans for a DV operating
system without DOS? Or DOS 7.0 is rumored to be 32 bit, I assume DV will
be accomodating that?
I know future plans/products are not announced, but it is sure
frustrating to fiqure what direction to go with. <sigh>
David Dodell
---
Internet: da...@stat.com FAX: +1 (602) 451-6135
Bitnet: ATW1H@ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15
Amateur Packet ax25: wb7...@wb7tpy.az.usa.na
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: The Future of DV/DOS?
Message-ID: <1993May26.142828.22273@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <NPB54B1w165w@stat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 93 14:28:28 GMT
Lines: 40
In article <NPB54B1w1...@stat.com> da...@stat.com (David Dodell) writes:
>I'm still "stuck" with DOS/DV at 16 bits. Anyone have any feelings about
>migrating to the 32 bit packages?
Let me add the perspective from the OS/2 viewpoint...
The key in this whole issue is taking advantage of the power of the [345]86
while not having to jettison your entire investment in software, which is
often more valuable than the hardware it's run on, not to mention the
investment in expertise. Here's one place where Windows NT falls down: it's
explicitly designed with compatibility with existing software as a secondary
consideration; Microsoft is only guaranteeing compatibility with the "top 100"
Windows and DOS apps. DOS-based systems (including Windows 3.1 and DV[/X])
don't adequately take advantage of the 386 architecture because they're stuck
with working within the limitations of DOS; it's not only possible, but easy,
to bring the whole system crashing down around your ears with one errant
program. OS/2 combines the best of both worlds: it runs nearly all DOS/Windows
software (excepting mainly programs using the obsolete and insecure VCPI spec,
and Winapps that require VxDs), and still keeps one program from crashing the
whole system.
Yes, this does cost extra in hardware, mainly RAM: 8 meg is a practical
minimum (but the system runs very well in 8 meg: that's what the machine I'm
running now has in it). That's a tradeoff some folks can't make - either they
don't have a 386, or they can't afford more memory, or something like that -
and for them, OS/2 isn't appropriate. For a machine that can run it, though,
it's a Wonderful Thing.
I'm still running DV CLassic and QEMM386 on my packet radio system at home
because it won't run OS/2...but my main home system is an OS/2 box.
So where does DV fit in? Except for those who need the special capabilities of
DV/X, unless Quarterdeck divorces DV from DOS, it will increasingly become a
low-end system, suitable only for those who can't run a true 32-bit
multitasking OS. (IMHO, of course...and I'm a longtime DV user.)
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"I'm waiting for that "National data superhighway" to install an onramp in
my house..." -- Gary Rich