X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f996b,9ba64c635b2340c1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-24 19:44:14 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: anonymous@bogus_address.con
Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: Dead or alive...
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:44:14 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <tqvrru8i5pkec2@corp.supernews.com>
References: <4tcuqt0h924vpaid8ue9g8h33bl2pj7o0n@4ax.com>  
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 36
Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:7921


On 2001-09-24 nowhere@nowhere.co.uk said:

   >Why would you want to use DOS anyway? It's the worst OS there is.

Not so.  DOS is a small, relatively efficient O.S. ...unlike
that bloated pointee-clickee abomination.

But more importantly, DOS allows the =user= to make the
decisions about how he wants his machine to look, act and
perform.  It's a much more 'down-to-the-metal' O.S., where
the =user= is in control...not some megalomaniac in Redmond,
Washington, U.S.A.

Besides, DOS is ten times faster than WinDoze on any given
machine.

Plus, the DOS executable files for any productivity software
programs are 20 to 50 times smaller than a comparable WinDoze
program.  A 500 meg hard disk is =more= than sufficient for
a DOS-based machine.  You simply don't need a mega-gigabyte
drive.

And we haven't yet mentioned security.  I think we all know
how 'secure' WinDoze is.  Not! :)
 
   >If you're going to use the console, at least use something decent
   >like Linux.

Although it's a 'techie' O.S., and therefore not everyone's
cup of tea, Linux is okay.  But it suffers from many of the
same ailments that afflict WinDoze: bloat, hogging of system
resources, etc., plus a relative dearth of software choices.

But if one feels that one simply MUST use a protected-mode
O.S., then yeah...Linux is a fair choice.