> And the reason is VERY clear: backwards compatibility. Look at the x86
> architecture, we are still using CPUs that can run code developed for
> the first IBM PC. The fact that the OS has remained as compatible for so
> long is NO surprise.
>
> Given the alternatives at the time I'd say DOS was the better choice, it
> was resource friendly enough to be able to run on very minimal hardware.
> The fact that everything later was an evolution or kludge of DOS was no
> surprise, backwards compatibility is king in the world of PCs, and THAT
> is a GOOD thing. TTYL

What you people are missing is, Xenix ran DOS binaries just fine ;-)

Peter
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist