Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jan 2010 23:09 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows As inevitable as the tides rolling in: every time a new Windows version is released, someone with too much time on his hands tries to install it on extremely outdated hardware. Sure, it won't be usable by any standard whatsoever, but it's still a fun thing to do. Of course, Windows 7 couldn't lag behind.
Thread beginning with comment 403368
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why hardware... is outdated?
by dulac on Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Why hardware... is outdated?"
Member since:

Yes, as opposed to DOS most modern OS' aren't total crap.

We are using them, not DOS ;)

[p]There was NOTHING good about DOS and I am continually surprised that people bring it out as some example of a good OS in some way. [/q]

Well, DOS IS a reference to simplicity and problem solving by ingenuity. Simplicity leads to keep Problems (and Solutions) very clear and discernable.
That is (maybe) the point in DOS in comparison with today's OS's... besides GUI environment, naturally.

By today's "needs" DOS is indeed a piece of outdated crap... but there's something in it that is appealing, and (at least to me) is the reminder of something that can be changed... and that is small enough to be efficient.

I used {commo} as a COMMs terminal and "jabber" as a fidonet client... Naturally I still miss the convenience of deciding which editor to use in a GUI OS. Not because of the GUI OS but because the way applications are build. Does anyone feel the same?

Seems that with GUIs ingenuity and UNIX philosophy was forgotten. And so... Applications grow like hell. Charles Moore philosophy (creator of FORTH language) has always been the favorite beacon. Opposed is using tools as push-buttons toys.

Configuration needs seem to have nothing to do with simplicity but seems rather a fast hack to avoid solving induced problems. Nothing being perfect, availability seems more relevant than perfection. At least application can be used.

But the final cost grows more that the initial one that that was avoid for the sake of fast solutions (a bit like the old direct programming and debug later instead of planning). OOP could have solved the problem... that was expected... but didn't happen. Except, maybe, in the AMIGA and MACs (and BeOS).

Looking back, we still live in a disguised DOS methodology, but without learning its lessons.

There were lessons: DOS being a one user OS pushed solutions much different that the UNIX corporate needs for a few applications. That is, maybe, why we now have all applications in one place and configuration files all mixed on another. It makes sense for the system but not to individual applications. Lessons seem to have NOT being learned.

And DOS comes to mind, even with all it's defects and primitivism. Solutions are re-discovered again and again... almost as hacks to the problems induced by ignoring the old lessons. I suppose.

Reply Parent Score: 1