Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Nov 2008 16:12 UTC, submitted by Michael
Permalink for comment 336415
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
3.x succeeded because it ran on top of DOS (unlike OS/2). Microsoft was selling a popular MSDOS at the time and succeeded in pushing this to people. Simple OS, but a leap forward from DOS shell. And much less buggy than the 95 version.
MS should just give it for free now, even if it's against their philosophy. Releasing source also wouldn't harm, although I don't want to see yet another ancient OS revival.
But is Win3.x technically an OS considering it just sat on top of DOS?
And, more importantly, would any programmers really be interested in reviving a GUI for DOS given how irrellevent DOS OS is these days*?
* irrellevent in the 'pure OS' sense. Sure people use DOS shells in NT for speed / scripting or DOSBOX on *nix for backward compatability with MS-DOS applications, but that's hardly the same as running DOS as purely as an OS (thus demanding a need for a windows front-end).
Edited 2008-11-05 22:34 UTC