Hi,

I am definitely for DOS. I do also my (almost) full development activities
using this o.s. Applications developped by me for PC runs only using DOS
(maybe in a DOS Window). However, the DOS I am using is the Caldera Open
DOS, rather than MS. It is stable, well-documented and
resource-economical. The C compiler I am using is the Micro-C from
Dunfield Development Systems, as it is practically bug-free, and the
programs generated are as small as they would be written in assembly. (A
pain that Mr. Dunfield has not created a PIC C compiler yet...)

The customer should be satisfied that instead of continuous danger of data
loss and system crash he can use a smaller but (almost: rock) stable o.s.
as result of decision coming from serious programmers.

Here is my $0.02.

Imre

PS: another very important argument is the possibility of direct accessing
of hardware component under DOS so it can be treated as RTOS.


On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, John Waters wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> As a system integrator, I used to build control systems for customers using
> industrial/embedded PCs, but as Windows has replaced DOS in the commercial
> sector, unless I packaged my product as a proprietary system, many of my
> customers will query if they are advanced enough since they are still
> running on DOS. However, to me, I still find DOS the most economical and
> programmer friendly o.s. to use in many industrial applications, especially
> when a graphical user interface is not needed.
> Am I making a wrong decision of retaining a phasing out o.s. in my product?
> Or can anyone suggest me some ways to make my customers confident in my DOS
> based systems?
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>