Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Ten Momentous Moments in DOS History here
Page 1 of 1
Ten Momentous Moments in DOS History
MultiQuote
#2
PsychoStreak 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 01-April 08
Posted 01 April 2008 - 03:45 PM
Ah, DOS 4. Bane of my existence during my Sophomore & Junior years of High School. As DOS versions go, that was our Vista, really. It used more memory for itself than any DOS before or after, and not even QEMM or 386Max could do much to improve it. It was also slow; so very, very slow.
4.01 improved things somewhat, but it was still a pig. Most people I knew, including myself stuck with 3.3 or 3.2 until DOS 5 came out.
It's like DOS went into some sort of deep depression in late 1987 and put on 250 pounds. It showed up in 1987 with some neat new tricks, but everyone shunned it for being fat and slow. Some quick crash dieting (DOS 4.01) helped a little, but people were still like, "you've changed, man." DOS, understandably distraught, withdrew, hired a personal trainer, and though it took 3 years, it slimmed down, sped up and came back on the scene as version 5.0. People were pleased to see DOS back in good form, but by then they were expecting a little more. DOS, determined to win back it's fanbase, went in for a makeover and some new accessories, returning with a bang as DOS 6.0. People went nuts for DOS and could not lay their hands on it fast enough. DOS was pleased, but had a bit of a scandal when one of it's accessories DoubleSpace turned out to be something DOS didn't pay for, so it had to lose that for a while until it got one of it's own called DriveSpace. After that, it's wicked stepchildren stole all the spotlight and locked poor DOS away, only letting it out when someone needed to run a batch file, or got tired of waiting on an hourglass just to copy or delete a few files.
The moral of the story? If you love your OS, don't let it sit there eating bon-bons just because a few idiots told it could stand to put on some weight. The results are never, ever good.
BTW - the NY Times review is a hilarious read today, and reminds me of the inital reviews of a more recent descendant of DOS...
4.01 improved things somewhat, but it was still a pig. Most people I knew, including myself stuck with 3.3 or 3.2 until DOS 5 came out.
It's like DOS went into some sort of deep depression in late 1987 and put on 250 pounds. It showed up in 1987 with some neat new tricks, but everyone shunned it for being fat and slow. Some quick crash dieting (DOS 4.01) helped a little, but people were still like, "you've changed, man." DOS, understandably distraught, withdrew, hired a personal trainer, and though it took 3 years, it slimmed down, sped up and came back on the scene as version 5.0. People were pleased to see DOS back in good form, but by then they were expecting a little more. DOS, determined to win back it's fanbase, went in for a makeover and some new accessories, returning with a bang as DOS 6.0. People went nuts for DOS and could not lay their hands on it fast enough. DOS was pleased, but had a bit of a scandal when one of it's accessories DoubleSpace turned out to be something DOS didn't pay for, so it had to lose that for a while until it got one of it's own called DriveSpace. After that, it's wicked stepchildren stole all the spotlight and locked poor DOS away, only letting it out when someone needed to run a batch file, or got tired of waiting on an hourglass just to copy or delete a few files.
The moral of the story? If you love your OS, don't let it sit there eating bon-bons just because a few idiots told it could stand to put on some weight. The results are never, ever good.
BTW - the NY Times review is a hilarious read today, and reminds me of the inital reviews of a more recent descendant of DOS...
Page 1 of 1
