CompuServe Messages

John, I suppose Windows N/T does offer the the best potential but many people seem to like OS/2. Not that Mr Gates is listening but why not come out with a DOS which totally bypasses the 640 barrier and just offer it as an alternative. I can't imagine how people are going to continue using 286 based systems anyway. While multi-tasking is a nice feature, I find that having multiple apps really bogs the power of the PC down. And while Pentium based systems will help correct this situation with enough RAM, I don't find the advantage compelling. There's only so much I can do at one time anyway. I was working with a one monitor solution and a switcher to go back and forth. I have now found that two SVGA monitors work best for me, so that while test rendering for instance I can be working on other things. I'll admit that I'm resistant to change unless I see a significant benefit. One thing I've realised since acquiring the PAR for instance is that regardless of what operating system I need to implement, I no longer need to worry about device drivers as with the Targa. The point here being that in the past I would have been more concerned about compatibility. If Windows NT made things easier in terms of memory allocation and device drivers etc. I would see a compeling reason to switch. But it seems to me that while the interface is easier in that its iconographic the worst part of DOS is still a problem. And its not the concept of DOS but the way its had to develop over the years that's the problem. The concept of DOS is a good one, its implementation because of the 640k barrier and how devices are loaded is the real crux of the problem. DOS could be designed to do multi-tasking. Several years ago there was a program called Double DOS which did just. But that was before people where using more than 640k of memory. I'm hoping that some clever people like the people who wrote 4DOS will realise that a multi-tasking DOS based environment would appeal to alot of people, which could be really simple without the inherent massive overhead of NT. Nobody's listening but I just wanted to point out that the concept of DOS is not bad, per se anymore than the concept of Windows is bad; the problem for both is the downward compatibility as you pointed out, and the poor implementation to circum-navigate that blasted barrier. Its ironic that that even now there is no one standard for allocating high memory for applications which is just going to continue to compound the problem. I'm speaking of approaches like EMS and XMS and VCPI and DPMI and who knows what else. Maybe NT will resolve this longrun. Anyway thanks for the thoughts, I do appreciate your viewpoint, and just wanted to put the issue in clearer perspective. -JE