To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, I don't have an exclamation point after Win2k (Oooh!), but I feel it weas the height of the Microsoft OS, at least since DOS. I actually preferred DOS and Windows being separate, like the Unixish world. Dos apps were first-class citizens. I used Windows 3.1 as a nice app-launcher (it did pretty well with DOS apps). I believe it was a big mistake to glue it all into one "gooey" interface. C'mon back, Dos!! Only with long filenames, pre-emptive mulit-tasking, better memory management. That would rock, in my book.
I dont know wjat Windows 3.1x you used by the one I and everyone else I know used sucked pretty badly as a DOS-app frontend. That's one thing Win9x was actually better at.
We already have that. It's called Unix.
Tried FreeDOS recently? Maybe not with pre-emptive multi-tasking, but with long filenames and somewhat better hardware support for recent machines.
I must say, it brought a little smile to my face when I recently booted the FreeDOS installation CD in QEMU and partitioned a usb stick: there's people out there that still make somewhat elaborate DOS applications! Nice.





Member since:
2005-09-27
That basicly says it. Each new version is generally less impressive as the previous. I would say for the most part is is because it is maturing. But I would say it is mostly because lately there hasn't been any good competition to it. Linux is still not there (It has all the elements but not quite put together right). Mac OS X is competitive but requires selective hardware. OS 2 Dead (reason for the 95 Wow!).