295 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
295 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
Why You Should Use DOS
|
||
|
release 3
|
||
|
|
||
|
by Burnin' of UNKNOWN Prez
|
||
|
Oct 16th, 2001
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
Introduction
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most people have heard of DOS. And most people don't use it. And that's
|
||
|
INSANE, because DOS simply RULES!!!
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
The misinformation
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
One of the reasons why people don't use DOS nowadays is because they have a
|
||
|
certain image of it: hard-to-use--commandline-only--has-no-software--needs-
|
||
|
too-much-intention--crashes-all-the-time--SIMPLY-TOO-DAMN-DIFFICULT. That
|
||
|
image is completely wrong and this chapter is meant to clear up the
|
||
|
misinformation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS is commandline only
|
||
|
|
||
|
--EEK!--WROOONG!-- In case you don't know: DOS is probably the shell-
|
||
|
richest OS there is. There are user interfaces from primitive text mode
|
||
|
shells which only show directory listing to very complicated SVGA shells
|
||
|
which aren't usable without a mouse. And one other thing (if you don't know
|
||
|
it yet): until 1995 MicroPlot (in English: Microsoft Corp.) Windows was
|
||
|
nothing more than a DOS shell (advanced, 32bit, with it's own file formats,
|
||
|
but still just a shell). Try to remember, when was the last time you actually
|
||
|
saw somebody working with a DOS command prompt on a regular basis (and I'm
|
||
|
talking about actual "every day" usage here and not about attempts to
|
||
|
recover from a HD crash or viral attack)? Well, can you remember? Thought so,
|
||
|
you can't! That's simply because nobody uses the command prompt anymore,
|
||
|
there's no need for that
|
||
|
|
||
|
* You can do nothing in DOS
|
||
|
|
||
|
I once asked MiKE The Hacker to name ONE thing that can be done in
|
||
|
Windodgeball95+ and can't be done in DOS. He failed. That of course doesn't
|
||
|
mean that everything's possible under DOS, but the "can't do" list is
|
||
|
quite limited:
|
||
|
|
||
|
- video recording/editing
|
||
|
|
||
|
the reason for the non-existence of this kind of software is very simple:
|
||
|
as such software is run on a PC only by home users (professionals do such
|
||
|
stuff on powerful workstations under *NIX systems) and because by the time
|
||
|
PCs got powerful enough for this task there already was Windgoes (a
|
||
|
"userfriendly" shell specially for home users) then the DOS market didn't
|
||
|
promise enough profit.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- watching full-length movies
|
||
|
|
||
|
several DOS viewers support VideoCD but you usually won't get far with
|
||
|
those 600MB movie files you can find on the Net. But that mostly applies
|
||
|
to MPEGs, AVIs can be shown without problems. And the latest versions of
|
||
|
QuickView Pro (NOT the Wincrash toy) support (atleast partly) the new and
|
||
|
favored DivX;-) decoder.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- watching RealVideo
|
||
|
|
||
|
the Real software appeared after release of WWin955555..error_loading so
|
||
|
no wonder that the company behind the technology didn't want to bother
|
||
|
with a DOS version. But you can get the source code and binaries of a DOS
|
||
|
RealSound player from iNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- get MP3s with Napster
|
||
|
|
||
|
I'm not completely sure that there're no DOS clients for Napster or any of
|
||
|
it's clone-networks, but I haven't stumbled onto any yet. But Napster is a
|
||
|
relatively new technology, so who says it's going to stay that way?
|
||
|
|
||
|
- running Java applications
|
||
|
|
||
|
the most used programs of this kind are Java based chatrooms on the iNet.
|
||
|
The main problem is that JVMs (Java Virtual Machine, basically a whole
|
||
|
operating system that runs the Java program) need quite a lot of resources
|
||
|
and DOS, as you should know, ain't mostly run on very powerful systems.
|
||
|
While there exist some JVMs for DOS (for example Zhaba) they aren't widely
|
||
|
available and are still under development. But that's actually not such a
|
||
|
big problem, because many Java chatrooms are simply "shells" for IRC
|
||
|
channels so it would be possible to use them from the webbrowser. And IRC
|
||
|
clients for DOS are nothing new.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- run Windoom programs
|
||
|
|
||
|
THE ultimate thing missing in DOS. But who wants to run Wipingyourhd9x
|
||
|
programs when he/she has DOS programs which can do exactly the same?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Well, that's about it. Maybe there are one or two more things but I can't
|
||
|
remember any. All the usual stuff that one uses his/her computer for like
|
||
|
listening to music, working with a wordprocessor/spreadsheet/database, surfing
|
||
|
in Net, painting, looking through the JPEG collection, writing e-mail, etc.,
|
||
|
etc., etc. and also somewhat more advanced stuff like CAD, writing CD-Rs,
|
||
|
etc., etc. can be done in DOS
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS crashes all the time
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most DOSs have been around for ages (MS- and PC-DOS for example) so most
|
||
|
of their bugs have been fixed and so a crash is (probably) not the OS'
|
||
|
fault. What crashes all the time are actually user programs. The reason
|
||
|
for this is that programmers often don't have enough knowledge to predict
|
||
|
the one or other bug and/or don't test the software throughly enough. But
|
||
|
that is the fault of the coder and not the OS. As Winmurder is a
|
||
|
'controlling' OS then small errors which under DOS would (probably) cause
|
||
|
a hang have no "effect" under it. But Winbelton is relatively new and that
|
||
|
means it's relatively buggy so every program (even the bug free ones) still
|
||
|
can crash. And there's always the problem of the simplicity: because
|
||
|
Windude is a very complicated piece of code then there might be
|
||
|
incompatibilities between software one couldn't ever imagine. And DOS, unlike
|
||
|
Wannabe9x, has MANY crash recovery programs, of which some only consume as
|
||
|
little as 400 bytes memory.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Only one program can run at a time
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are at least two different DOS distributions which have built in
|
||
|
multitasking features. To be honest then I'ven't succeeded in obtaining these
|
||
|
DOSs. But I do have one which has support for multitasking and can perform
|
||
|
this if a special TSR is loaded. And several shells like DESQView and SEAL
|
||
|
can perform task switching which from the viewpoint of a user is almost the
|
||
|
same as multitasking
|
||
|
|
||
|
* No support for documents made under Widiot
|
||
|
|
||
|
Several advanced viewing programs which can handle Word/WordPerfect/etc.
|
||
|
files are available. They are usually shareware thus you have to pay for
|
||
|
them, but that's still A LOT cheaper than buying M$ cOffice. And there
|
||
|
are also a couple of programs for editing the documents
|
||
|
|
||
|
* There is no office-software for DOS
|
||
|
|
||
|
Yes there is: NewDeal Office or M$ Works for example
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS is limited to 8.3 characters filename
|
||
|
|
||
|
That's not true. First there're some DOSs which support LFNs (DR-DOS has
|
||
|
a special TSR for that and RxDOS has LFN support built-in) and for second
|
||
|
it's possible to use the commandline LFNTOOLS (or something similar) or
|
||
|
resident tools like DosLfn which use Winburns LFNs. By LFNTOOLS you are tied
|
||
|
to this particular utilities, but in case 1 or DosLfn you can use a file
|
||
|
manager which can handle LFNs (CONNECT, DN-OSP, VC 5.x etc.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS needs too much intention
|
||
|
|
||
|
Another wrong assumption. Actually DOS is a lot easier to maintain. For
|
||
|
starters we don't have that 'stores stuff in several directories' "feature"
|
||
|
which many WinNose programs have. DOS programs usually have all their files
|
||
|
in one (the main executable's) directory. Second is the registry problem. As
|
||
|
DOS doesn't have such a thing (ok, AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS can be looked at
|
||
|
as registry) then we don't have to worry about it getting messed up. Another
|
||
|
good thing is that most DOS programs ask if the user is OK with changing the
|
||
|
startup files (very few Winston9x/ME/2000/NT applications do that). And the
|
||
|
only thing that is changed is usually the PATH. The un-installation is also
|
||
|
easier because one can simply delete the un-needed lines by him/herself (DOS
|
||
|
startup files are small textfiles so there's no problem with looking them
|
||
|
through). By many Waste9x applications the installation is necessary for the
|
||
|
correct and full working of the program so it's not possible to just copy
|
||
|
them to HD and run. Another point for DOS is that basically the only
|
||
|
shared-between-different-software parts are DOS extenders like DOS/4GW. So
|
||
|
the well known WheallyIll9x problem "missing DLLs" simply doesn't exist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS is simply tooooo difficult
|
||
|
|
||
|
Can you use a text editor? Can you boot your computer? Can you read? Yes?
|
||
|
Then you can install new software. The only significant difference from
|
||
|
amousecollectioncalledWindows is that instead of putting little birdies
|
||
|
into small boxes you write/change lines in(to) configuration files (although
|
||
|
newer programs allow you to change the behavior of the program through
|
||
|
"making birdies"). And installing is the only thing that's different.
|
||
|
Using some application is exactly as by Winoise. And you don't think it's
|
||
|
difficult there
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
The advantages
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
Of course, DOS has several advantages when compared to Winkwink, it doesn't
|
||
|
rule just like that without any reason :)
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Smaller hardware requirements
|
||
|
|
||
|
From my own experience I can say that Win<puke>95 won't run well unless you
|
||
|
have a Pentium. You probably don't know that because everything runs well
|
||
|
on your 700MHz Pendelum III. But think how fast DOS programs would run :)
|
||
|
But seriously, the kernel (basically the whole DOS) is only 2 or 3 files
|
||
|
(depends of what DOS you have) which usually occupy less then 200kB. You
|
||
|
did read right, 200 kilobytes, not megabytes. To get the full power of DOS
|
||
|
you will need some more files but often the whole system will fit on one
|
||
|
1,44MB floppy. And the small size applies to most DOS software. As you see
|
||
|
there's no need to waste a HUGE amount of money to a 40GB hard drive. The
|
||
|
same is true when talking about memory. 8MB is enough (although I suggest
|
||
|
16MB or more to advanced users). Because the software needs less resources
|
||
|
the whole system works faster
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Smaller price
|
||
|
|
||
|
For starters you can get the operating system for free (and even with source
|
||
|
code if you're interested in it). Also a lot of DOS software is under GPL
|
||
|
which basically means free and source released (I've never seen a Winsane
|
||
|
program under GPL (although I believe there are some)). Even if the software
|
||
|
ain't source released it's still often free
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Possibility to choose
|
||
|
|
||
|
Let's start with the operating system again, shall we? I for example have
|
||
|
6 different DOSs on my CDs and that's not even everything there is. On the
|
||
|
other hand, how many different Winsux beside the notorious Wacky9x can you
|
||
|
name? (I mean different distributions and not versions). Basically two:
|
||
|
Winlame 2000 and WindoN'Tdoit. And that's the only ones there are (maybe you
|
||
|
named also Winhuge 3.x, but this is just an earlier version of Ww-ww-win9x).
|
||
|
And Windog 2K ain't nothing more than a messed up hybrid freak from Whining98
|
||
|
and WinNoT. If you don't like your Windoze9x and don't have enough cash for
|
||
|
the "New Technology" (yeah, right) or the Y2K (bug :) distribution then the
|
||
|
only thing you can do is to move to another OS. Or add all kind of small
|
||
|
utilities to tweak your precious OS until it fits your needs/wishes. By DOS
|
||
|
you could simply try out some other distribution. And because DOS has been
|
||
|
around for a longer time then there's also MUCH more software for it
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Possibility to use floppies
|
||
|
|
||
|
Floppies are out of date, that's correct. But so what? True, compared to,
|
||
|
let's say CD-Rs, they are EXPENSIVE (one good diskette, that's ca. 1,44MB of
|
||
|
storage space, can cost as much as one CD-R, which can store ca. 720MB). But
|
||
|
you shouldn't forget that the floppy drive is included in the standard
|
||
|
configuration while the CD writer has to be bought additionally. There's also
|
||
|
the thing that you can (theoretically) get old floppies without any fee from
|
||
|
friends (or other nice people)
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Enhancing
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most people agree that DOS is a relatively primitive operating system. But
|
||
|
just because of that it's quite easy to enhance it. You can for example
|
||
|
format your floppies up to 1,9MB or make the floppy drive faster by modifying
|
||
|
it's parameter table. Or you can set things so that a reboot takes only 20
|
||
|
seconds (I'm talking about a 486 which loads ca. 25 programs by starting).
|
||
|
Tell me, how do you accomplish those things in Wiagra9x?
|
||
|
|
||
|
* DOS is as complete as ajokecalledWin
|
||
|
|
||
|
The only thing I remember never seeing in any DOS distribution is the
|
||
|
character map. Everything else from user interface and LAN software to
|
||
|
disk maintaining tools and web browser has been present
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Less chances to get infected with a computer virus
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you know ANYTHING about viruses then you'll say: "But the majority of
|
||
|
viruses out there are DOS viruses". Absolutely true, but don't forget a
|
||
|
couple of things: a) most DOS viruses aren't iNet aware, so they don't use
|
||
|
it to spread; b) most DOS viruses are incompatible to WinS*** so they are
|
||
|
usually killed off by others before they can reach you. You won't get
|
||
|
infected with such notorious things as CIH or Melissa or any other
|
||
|
Willagepeople9x virus so you don't have to be paranoiac about every CD-R
|
||
|
a friend (who had a CIH attack lately) gives you
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
The disadvantages
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
As it's so by EVERYTHING, DOS too has some disadvantages when compared to
|
||
|
Winter9x
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Very few large/well known companies still support DOS
|
||
|
|
||
|
This doesn't mean that there ain't any new software, just most of it is
|
||
|
from smaller (mostly mail-order) companies
|
||
|
|
||
|
* You can't play newer games
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most of them use additions like OpenGL or DirectX and these are things which
|
||
|
are not present in DOS
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
Conclusion
|
||
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you have just bought a high-end PC which cost several thousand dollars and
|
||
|
had pre-installed Wingadget then I don't say that you should wipe your HD and
|
||
|
install DOS. If you on the other hand are thinking about buying a computer and
|
||
|
discover (or already know) that your financial resources are rather limited
|
||
|
then I do suggest buying (or rather finding) some used 486 or rather-low-MHz
|
||
|
Pentium and using DOS as operating system. If you can live without Half-Life
|
||
|
or Age Of Empires II then DOS certainly deserves a chance.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|