From: smirzo@example.com
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <87tt83besr.fsf@example.com>,
> Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>>Grant Taylor writes:
>>
>>> On 7/18/24 10:07, Paul Edwards wrote:
>>>> For 35+ years I have wondered why there was no MSDOS for the mainframe.
>>>
>>> The answer is in the name.
>>>
>>> MS-DOS
>>>
>>> Microsoft DOS
>>>
>>> Micro
>>>
>>> micro-computers are the smallest end of the system with mainframes and
>>> supers at the other end of the system.
>>>
>>> IBM provided a Disk Operating System for early and / or smaller
>>> mainframes.
>>
>>And why is /Disk/ Operating System? What's so /disky/ about it?
>
> Simple: it drove a system with a disk. Most early mainframes
> didn't have disks, so once they came along, system software had
> to evolve to meet the needs of new hardware.
>
> IBM's DOS/360 was pretty anemic compared to it's flagship OS360.
> But it was built as something of a stopgap because OS was behind
> schedule.
Thanks! Changing the subject a bit to the history of DOS, if that's
okay. I was not quite aware that there was a mainframe DOS in the IBM
world. So it seems to me tbat Microsoft found the DOS made by ``Seattle
Computer Products'' the right choice to buy because they wanted to
produce a system for IBM micro-computers---it makes sense in sort of
keeping the same user interface. But this strategy assumes that the
users of micro-computers would be the more or less the same users as IBM
mainframes. Am I imagining things correctly here and did the strategy
really make sense? (It could also be the case that Microsoft just
didn't have any other option.) (Background: I've watched the film
``Pirates of Sillicon Valley'' a long time ago. That's how much I know
about the history of MS-DOS.)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
