DeLeTeBR said:Don't say DOS was bad litlle Jonhy, in that time, for me, was just too fun to use and to learn ^_^
I know this post is already off topic, but who here remember of games like: Day of Tentacle, Fullthrotle, Alone in the Dark 1/2/3, Timegate, Tyrian and all this older games ?
Yes, that games were more fun than any game now (don't forget little big adventure 2, it has awesome graphics, and toonstruck, they were both running good on my old 486 dx/2 66 mhz, 20 mb ram and 1 mb video!!!).DeLeTeBR said:I know this post is already off topic, but who here remember of games like: Day of Tentacle, Fullthrotle, Alone in the Dark 1/2/3, Timegate, Tyrian and all this older games ?
thedaemon666 said:haha for one windows 3.11 is just a graphical overlay for dos and yes dos is an OS it stands for Direct Operating System(i believe lol can't remember) its just that dos was meant to run on the older systems like you know 486 and lower lol and was only kept going cause people liked the games and windows wasn't all that much of a gaming platform at the time
thedaemon666 said:haha for one windows 3.11 is just a graphical overlay for dos and yes dos is an OS it stands for Direct Operating System(i believe lol can't remember) its just that dos was meant to run on the older systems like you know 486 and lower lol and was only kept going cause people liked the games and windows wasn't all that much of a gaming platform at the time
Sayargh said:DOS is not a bad OS, Windows 3.11 on the other hand is.
Hacktarux said:Of course it's not a bad OS, it's not an OS at all IMO.... Seriously it doesn't contain 1/10 of the things an OS is supposed to provide... If you look at it, every basic things were provided by external tools, for example the DOS kernel doesn't allow you to use more than 640Kb of RAM, you need a tool to access more. An OS is also supposed to provide a standard way to program all your devices, nothing like this exists on DOS, that's crazy even for an OS released during the 80s.
Edit: why are post dates totally screwed ?
LazerTag said:If you meant Windows 3.11 (or other older versions) is not an OS, vey true. Just a program on top of the OS itself.
If you meant DOS is not an OS, I don't agree with that. If you look back at systems back then most didn't have more then 640K (heck my first IBM PC only had 64k which I promptly upgraded to a hefty 256k). Also most if not all of the hardware the was available then was supported by the OS already (serial, parallel, keyboard, video). I mean most people were not even using a mouse before Windows 3.0. Even later when systems did start coming with more then 640k most DOS versions (at least IBM releases) started included HIMEM.SYS (and later EMM386.EXE) for memory management.
If you think about it those same type of programs are still being used today only they are smarter with Plug and Play systems and also require no user intervention (for the most part) to use the memory or devices to the fullest.
Hacktarux said:No what i mean, is that UNIX and generally people who were working on OS theory have established some rules to write an OS... For the user, the programmer and the hardware designed, things are supposed to always look the same whatever the hardware is...