45f488b5   
   From: marcov@stack.nl   
      
   On 2010-01-03, Rugxulo  wrote:   
   > 286s (which isn't really that bad a thing). So MS and IBM parted ways.   
   > If you think DOS was doomed, you forgot that Win3.x ran atop DOS (even   
   > DR-DOS), and even Win9x ran atop MS-DOS 7.   
      
   Which meant absolutely nothing from most users perspective. Is like a Mac   
   with Forth based bootstrap not making every Mac users Forth experts. (or   
   even know what it is)   
      
   And yes, DPMI was originally created to make >640kb use over a range of OSes   
   possible. But mostly for their dos compatibility modes.   
      
   > Until Win95, you could really only write 32-bit apps in DOS (well, unless   
   > you count Win32s, or did that only come out later?   
      
   No idea.   
      
   >> Even after one year win95, already the bulk of the users didn't know dos.   
   >   
   > I disagree. The main cliche to mention here would be Quake (late 1996)   
   > using DJGPPv2 (2.00beta3, GCC 2.7.2). Or any DJGPP tools themselves,   
   > even, which kept being updated.   
      
   Quickly followed by quake '95. That says enough.   
      
   > It doesn't mean DOS didn't have deficiencies (esp. drivers), but you   
   > can't say "Linux / FreeBSD is teh rox0rz" without admitting that   
      
   (I can't even decrypt that, leet speak is beyond me)   
      
   > FreeDOS could legitimately be extended in similar fashion too. "Oh,   
   > but then it wouldn't be DOS."   
      
   The point is nobody cared.   
      
   > And yet Linux 0.001 still counts as Linux?!? What about everything prior   
   > to 2.2? 2.4? x86-64? Is it still Linux?? Apparently so.   
      
   You got a point there. It also has been one of the weaknesses of Linux, the   
   absense of long runnable binaries.   
      
   >> That's the real problem. If you choose to remain on a small island, there is   
   >> a fair chance you'll be left alone. Specially if the island is crumbling bit   
   >> by bit.   
   >   
   > MS either won't or (more likely) can't fix NTVDM. RHIDE no longer   
   > works (whereas it worked fine for ten years or so). So now the only   
   > option in your eyes is to drop DOS, DJGPP, etc. and move exclusively   
   > to Win32?   
      
   Stronger. I think that should have been done in 2000-2005 somewhere.   
      
   IOW I think it is too late now, after the large gap. Even if sb really   
   invests a lot of time, most of the users that one could have kept   
   (educatioal, or only for the fun of it) moved one.   
      
   Same happened with FPC textmode IDE more or less. Naot DOS, but related to   
   the same group.   
      
   > And build RHIDE exclusively for Win32? If someone crashes into your car,   
   > do you go immediately buy a new one (and make sure it's completely   
   > different: truck, perhaps?)?   
      
   If the old car type was  somehow doomed, yes of course! Not because I would   
   want change, just for practical reasons.   
      
   >> True. But why does it have to be on the most difficult target?   
   >   
   > What do you suggest instead???   
      
   Stop flogging the dead horse. Choose anything practical, and somewhat where   
   your investments NOW are not lost.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)