Eric Smith wrote:

> Q-DOS, 86-DOS, and MS-DOS 1.x were inspired by various operating
> systems on DEC computers, such as TOPS-10, OS-8, and RT-11.  MS-DOS
> 1.x had essentially no similarity to Unix whatsoever.

  I was basing that on one of the "hooks" in MS-DOS which I understand
resembled a Unix-style scheduler call.  This was a bit of orphan code as
the necessary scheduler data structures were missing, but as it was
described wherever I read it, suggested that someone had at least read
the basic Unix operating systems course lecture material.  I certainly
can't quote my source as it was rather long ago and far away...

  I'm not at all sure this was version 1.x either, but then version 1.x
appears to have had no influence on the PC beyond proof-of-concept
anyway?  How many people have even seen a version 2.x?

> When they needed hierarchical directory support for hard drives, they
> did a disgusting job of sort of kludging it so that it has some
> trivial superficial similarities to Unix.  However, this similarity
> was never more than skin deep.

  Sure.  It's hierarchical, and there ends all similarity.  FAT instead
of Inodes, like TRS-DOS and presumably, CP/M (of which I know very
little).

>  MS Windows has no similiarity to the X window system to speak of.
> There is no sign that the developers had ever even seen X.  X may not
> be perfect, but MS didn't even copy its good features.

  I have a distinct feeling you're *not* defending M$-Win.

> If anything, Windows started as a poor attempt to clone the Macintosh,
> with some of Apple's less brilliant features omitted.

  Are you asserting that they carefully left out the bad bits, or they
didn't manage to include *even* the bad bits?
--
  Cheers,
        Paul B.