Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:786 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7630 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10611
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!eddie.mit.edu!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!dialin1-41-1.extern.ucsd.edu!mfischer
From: mfischer@ucsd.edu (Mike Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: RE: re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 05:16:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <mfischer.2.737183800@ucsd.edu>
References: <twalls.02tm@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk> <C6KDq4.7HB@news.udel.edu> <twalls.02ut@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk> <9MAY93.20570058@vax.clarku.edu> <twalls.02vo@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin1-41-1.extern.ucsd.edu

In article <twalls.02vo@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk> twalls@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk (Tim Walls) writes:
>From: twalls@ncc1701d.demon.co.uk (Tim Walls)
>Subject: Re: RE: re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
>Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 19:23:26 +0000
>In article <9MAY93.20570058@vax.clarku.edu> rmohns@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>But I don't want to have to run blasted Windows every time I want to delete
>a tree - it is absolutely ludicrous to load a hog like that just to delete
>some files!  It would be like requiring a crane to change the tyre on a car.

You don't, and never had to.  That's what enhanced shells are for.  Remember 
4DOS and NDOS?  I mean, come on, you can't expect DOS to cover everything 
from R1.0.  Microsoft has other projects to work on.

>> They want you to move to Windows 3.1, then later to Win32, and eventually to
>> Cairo.  This way they give you a reason to.
>
>By deliberately crippling the product?  Surely no...
>
>Oh, hold on, I guess you're right.  That certainly stinks of MicroSoft
>marketing techniques.

I don't think they deliberately crippled the project.  On the other hand, it 
IS a technical achievement for what it does considering that it rides on
top of DOS.  I mean, you get a GUI with reasonable speed on a PC.  With 
XWindows running on top of Linux or something similar you're still gonna 
need a fast processor.

[Re: DOS's death]
>Well Amen to that, but I wish it were a damn sight deader.  For a dead
>product, its used an awful lot.  And I suspect its going to carry on
>twitching for a long while yet, which isn't doing anyone any good.

Except for the people who use DOS programs, which means about 75% or more of 
the business world.

-->> Mike

