Image Map Image Map
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 121

Thread: Why isn't there a DOS forum ?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Guildford, U.K.
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtherabbit View Post
    the prospect of an alternate reality where the IBM PC ecosystem was founded on the 68k excites me, physically
    You and me both, sadly never to become a reality.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Guildford, U.K.
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krebizfan View Post
    If IBM was going to produce a $10,000 system in 1981, it would have an IBM designed CPU.
    Not the NatSemi 16032? (Since renumbered as the 32016, go figure!)

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,630
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WBST View Post
    Not the NatSemi 16032? (Since renumbered as the 32016, go figure!)
    1985 working chip. 1988 IBM's standard development plan would produce a working PC. No existing 16000 series software so maybe it would run the CP/M-80 version of dBase slowly, if the 8080 emulation had been working as projected. Absolutely the perfect chip for IBM use in a PC if one was a manager on the AS/400 and wanted to make sure the PC can not cannibalize the AS/400 market.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    33,669
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    I remember talking in, oh, must have been 1981 with the 16032 design guys. The thing was not a designed-in-house product and was far more advanced than even the 68K. I was excited--so I asked when they were going to start sampling silicon. They didn't know. This went on for at least 2 more years, with the same answer. Eventually the window for us had passed. I understand that the early production silicon was very buggy.

    I've got one of the PLCC versions used in a scrapped laser printer, but I've never done anything with it. The embedded version for laser printers apparently has some graphics extensions to the instruction set.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rochester, MN
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcdosretro View Post
    I don't like the Linux command shells at all; there too many things which are doable in the DOS/Windows shells that are a pain or undoable in Unix/Linux shells
    Can you provide an example or two? I am trying to imagine what type of things you could do in a DOS shell that would be a undoable in a Linux shell vs. the other way around.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    33,669
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Um, which Linux and which shell? I've never found that I can't do something in a Linux, say, bash shell that I could do in DOS. I've found plenty in DOS where I had to resort to a third-party shell to do what I wanted. CENVI is one such.

    On the other hand, the BusyBox Linux shell is quite limited--but then it's part of a very minimal implementation of Linux meant mostly for debugging.
    Last edited by Chuck(G); February 3rd, 2020 at 01:14 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rochester, MN
    Posts
    12

    Default

    That would be my impression as well. The DOS cmd shell is about as brain dead as you can get. Most of the Unix/Linux shells seem to be much more functional.

  8. #68

    Default

    I can think of several things I can do in DOS/Windows command shell (and its standard utilities) that can't be done in Linux shells (e.g. bash the most common). Anyway I really don't like Linux and only use it when necessary for work. If other people like it then that's fine but don't try to convince other people to like something just because you like it, doing so comes across as fanboyism which seems to be a thing for Linux fans and particularly Amiga fanboys. Consider if Linux was so great then in theory it should have taken over the desktop, particularly since it's free but it didn't, in part because of its archaic quirks, it's not easy to setup and use, and there are too many distributions. Windows is far from perfect and gets more bloated and more objectionable with each version but it's generally easy to setup and use, fairly stable (at least from XP) and you generally don't have to worry about driver support. Another issue is there is no central repository of API info for Linux. Say what you will about Microsoft but the Windows SDK has documentation for the Win32 API and related API and the stuff is online as well. Another thing I dislike about Linux (well Unix and its derivatives) is filename case-sensitivity which I consider stupid - I can't think of any situation where I would want readme.txt and ReadMe.txt to be different files, that's complete and utter madness. NTFS has it right: case preserving but case insensitive.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rochester, MN
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcdosretro View Post
    I can think of several things I can do in DOS/Windows command shell (and its standard utilities) that can't be done in Linux shells (e.g. bash the most common).
    So what are they?

    I don't think I am trying to convince anyone about one OS or another and don't really care, use what you want to use. For over 95% of users that don't know what a shell is and will never use one knowingly it doesn't really matter. I am more curious about what types of things that Windows shell can do that bash or one of the other shells can't do.

  10. #70

    Default

    I'll give you one: DIR /S

    Although I believe this doesn't (always) work on Microsoft platforms anymore either since Windows Vista, because you're forced to use NTFS and a default install of the OS has a directory tree that links back on itself creating an infinite loop.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •