Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
ive never had any trouble with dos aside from my trouble learning it. id say that gets a possible hell yeah out of hell yeah.
0 
What are you guys talking about? Dos has to be the worst system I've ever used. It's encredibly complex and it does nothing but execute simple little programs that can't do anything. Windows 95 and 98 are great. I've used them to do a bunch of things. So what it occasionally freezes at least it doesn't take an hour to delete a file. I'll give dos a HELL NO!!!
0
what do you mean it has s---ty memory support. compared to windows its a godsend. at least you can control it in dos. windows doesnt multitask either idiot. seems like you never used it and you're just trying to start s---.
0
They all have benifits and bad problems.
For DOS: Small and fast for old machines. Gives some more low level control. Real good if your windows9x machine catches on fire. A DOS wiz (me) can easily restore a network conenction (in DOS), save all important files, reformat and whip windows back up in a blick of an eye. This should be required knowledge. These days you have to teach a novice win9x user how to use DOS. Back when they knew how, now windows is a joke for them. The bad memory problems have a good advantage. Programers must develop most software to run in 640KB, usally resulting is small hard disk consumption.
For Windows9x: Allows more of a standard interface (can be a good thing) as well as some more advanced programs because the 640KB limit isn't there to deal with. Unfortunatly this can also result in crappy coding. Windows9x also has a more embedded design. It's an all in one installing all mouse, network, memory, etc instead of dealing with TSRs and running out of 640KB. This can make it easier to start off with and reduce headaches. Windows also has multitasking. Used effectivly this is useful.
"it does nothing but execute simple little programs that can't do anything" There is a wide variaty of useful programs for DOS. Even *shudder* Windows 3.1
0
To harold, the dumbass.
DOS isn't complex at all; Windows is insanely complex - piles of DLL and other crap all trying to work together...
You're thinking it's complex in that it's "hard to use" --- I'm glad idiots like you can't use it.
As for "executing simple programs" --- Windows is a freakin' DOS program. There's also web browsers/icq/irc all written for DOS.
Now, as for "deleting a file taking an hour"; windows is the crap that makes that hard...deleting a group of files..."are you sure you want to delete this file, its a .exe"..."are you sure you want to delete this file, its a system file"...and then after that, you have to delete them from the "recycle bin" and it then prompts you again to delete. THAT takes an hour.
So go take your ignorance, and blow it out your ass.
- W0rm
0
If Harold had to write a program to open and close his heart valves. He would probably run it in windows,
0
Hell Yeah, i agree! And there are a lot of small and efficient programs written for Dos and still beeing developped as we speak. Some will do in a couple hundreds K what needs several Megs in Windows.
0
I like having both. For some applications, DOS is superior. For others, Win98SE is my favorite. I tried ME but kept finding myself opening up a DOS box to do simple mundane things (attrib *.* -s -h -r) that is virtually impossible in Win mode (erase *.txt). I don't like ME because it eliminated config.sys and autoexec.bat so I've switched back to good old 98SE. I have an extra FAT16 partition. When I want real mode DOS, I just boot up using a DOS 6.22 disk and all it can see is the FAT16 partition which becomes the c: drive.
0
HELLLLLLLLLLL YYYYYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAH!
You're all on track, except for dumbass Harold and Gretzky, you know nothing, don't go bluffing about knowledge you haven't got and expertise you lack.
People who think Windows is good and DOS is slow are absolute pansies who know nothing. DOS is unmatched by _any_ other operating system, except maybe console Linux and Unix, for speed, stability, and reliability. On my 486\33, I've found that simple programs will load completely in less than 1\10th of a second. In Windows, on a faster computer, programs take a bit longer than that. In Windows Me, in terms of minutes. Not to mention that I have my full DOS configuration boot in 15 seconds flat, while Winblows 98 on some hyperfast computers still takes several minutes.
"Incredibly Complex"? Maybe for a pansy like you. Let me tell you, I could use DOS fine when I was in first grade.
"Crap memory management"? That's what Windows has. It frags up your memory and leaves your system unstable. You've got 500 DLLs fighting for memory.
"Takes an hour to delete a file"? In DOS you can delete instantaneously if you just know how.
Now, in DOS, you've basically got a static memory model and single-tasking. This results in unbeatable stability, and you can run DOS for months at a time and the system won't slow down like in Windows.
Don't give me the "everybody uses Windows" s---, because half the people who use Windows and rely on it don't know nulljackdiddlyemptycrosseyedbadgers---{?????} about computers because of what Windows teaches them. So they can't do anything else in any other OS, and don't understand anything about anything.
"Can't multitask"? Windows sure as hell can't multitask worth s---.
Not to mention, you CAN multitask and task switch in DOS, with the util DOSSHELL, or with commercial programs like TopView and DESQview. Better than Windows too. Speaking of which, I have a Timex digital watch that can multitask better than Windows.
Hmmm....100K DOS program translates to 500MB Windows program too. Hardly exaggerating either.Who else wants to challenge us? You'll lose.
0
I'm sorry, but this reminds me of posts I once read in an Apple newsgroup before the *new* Apples came out and people started buying them again. It is, as that saying goes, preaching to the converted. If you know DOS well enough, you can easily appreciate its high points. Same with Windows or Mac OS or any other OS, though. Everyone has high points and low points. It's because much as anyone who writes software knows, you can't have it all. You add a zillion features, you lose speed. You make it single-threaded, it's more stable but less flexible. So yes, DOS is great. I love DOS. I also love my NT and my Linux and even my old Commodore 64, though. I just fail to see the point of this. Like I said at the beginning, it just reminds me of those times of reading the two or three people who supported Apple telling each other how great it was.
0
Whoa! I didn't know this would be such a big deal. Sounds like some people adamently hate Dos and some love it.
0
I would just like to say that DoOMsdAY has a good point. I have 14 (yes, I said 14) computers in my house and I run just about every version of DOS, Windows and NT that I can get a hold of. I have some 8086, 286,386, 486, Pent 133, K2-500 and Athlon 850 computers. I have every configuration possible and a different use for each one. I love DOS because the programs are smaller, do what I need and you don't need alot of memory or large hard drive for storage.
I have collected alot of programs and games for dos and have a use and need for just about all of them. I use them on whichever computer has the right system requirements. I collect old computers and OS's for personal and business reasons. I own LoboTech Computer Systems and deal with alot of older computers, and it helps to show customers just what there computer is capable of. You don't need a High End system to use Dos and all the programs and games that are avalible. DOS is a Great Operating System and we would not have some of the other OS's without it.
Everyone will have there own opinion, and to each his own. You use what you prefer and no one can tell you any different.
"Can't we just all get along" ;)
0
Well, I agree... DOS IS GREAT!!!
BUT DOS is even greater when used in combination with Windows 9X/ME.
Because like said before, u can't switch screens in DOS.
But windows without DOS would SUCK!
Greetz,
Stijn
0
HELL YEAH! DOS is small and way faster than
Windows. Multitasking can be added.
Windows takes the fun out of DOS.
Most of the things I do simply *cannot* be done in Windows.Just yesterday, someone asked me how to automatically copy the newest file and only the newest from a specific log directory to another directory. Can't do that in Windows.
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Navigator 4.08
0
DOS has its uses, and if pushed into a corner I would also say HELL YEAH!
Like Lobo Tech I use (or have in the past) just about every OS going. But I do not go as far as having a computer for each one. (I use removable harddrive caddies.) I use Windows 98se for everyday computing needs. But still go back to DOS for special projects. All I will say is that apart from minor twecking by Microsoft MS-DOS is still the same with 95/98 as it was with 6.22
Windows 9x cannot start without it. I await Windows XT (Whistler) and its NT technoligy for home users with baited breath, and the messages posted here about LACK of DOS support! HELL YEAH!
0
P.S. When I say just the same as 6.22 I mean when you put back the files Microsoft removed of course!
I continue to support MS-DOS & Windows 3.1 as well as Windows 95/98 on my Resource Site
http://www.powerload.fsnet.co.uk
Where you can download updates, patchs and missing MS-DOS files a little more easer than looking for them at Microsoft!
0
HeLL YEAH!!!!!!!!
format a hard drive and put dos on it with no problem at all 99.9% (perfectly) of the time on the first try. Try to put win 9x/me on and oh my it it works 10% of the time on the first try.
0
I think it's that people who can't type hate DOS.
Hell yeah it is much more reliable and stable than windows.
0
They hate it because they are to ignorant to learn it. That is the main problem. They are use to pointing & clicking on pretty little graphical icons!
0
Can't speak of DOS directly, but win3.11. Manipulating the same 40mb graphic with a K6-3 450mhz, 128mb ram, win95 compared to a Cyrix pr166, 64mb ram and win3.11, the results? The Cyrix with win3.11 was twice as fast! Win95 kept jumping into the swap file. DOS with win3.11, lean and mean.
0
HELL YEA!!!
Dos is great, or I should say was great... BSD is, in my opinion, supreme, but before windows was out, I used nothing but dos, I had Winblows 3.1 installed when i needed it, in the case of usfull programs where the programers made the mistake of writting it for WinBlows (p.s. I also had several drivers running under Winblows 3.1 that made it semi-multitask AND run 32 bit programs). When i had dos it NEVER crashed, NEVER lost data, NEVER gave me a Heart attack based on being so ENRAGED with the operating system. I rebooted my MS DOS system MAYBE once every month, just to clear the memory, and even then it took about 20 seconds to reboot back to a prompt. for those of you who think its complex, WinBlows was written for YOU! the people that are either too stupid or too lazy to figure anything out. Sure WinBlows is easy and SEMI-conviniant (when it wasnt crashing), but it has SH*T for Low Level control, it HATES when you try and to ANYTHING directly to the hardware, causing a drastic performance decrease. The ONLY major problem that i found with Dos was that it only had 640k of conventional memory (thank you VERY much Bill...a**hole), but that could be worked around very easily with a program called Quarterdeck. The latest version for dos (8.0) also made a small image of the system right before it started to load config.sys and autoexec.bat, so if you HAD to reboot, it jumped straight to "Starting MS-DOS" instead of rebooting the whole computer, which was convinient as hell. and Norton Utilities (God's Gift to people who are anal about their computers) was a GREAT set of tools to do just about ANYTHING you wanted to..
so in summery HELL F**KING YEA!!!
p.s. MEGADETH KICKS A** TOO!!
0
DOS is cool. I have a ton of DOS games, and they still run on my laptop running Windows 2000!
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
