4 ms·

But the DOS machines I used in my kiddiehood were much more powerful than the PDP-11s etc that Unix and its rivals had been developed on. Sure, DOS was solving

But the DOS machines I used in my kiddiehood were much more powerful than the PDP-11s etc that Unix and its rivals had been developed on. Sure, DOS was solving useful problems that Unix didn't. But there was no reason why an OS for computers with 20Mhz processors that whopping 640kB of RAM had to be as bad as it was.

flomo 8y ago
Sure and you could buy SCO UNIX for that machine for only $3500. Everyone knew DOS was awful, but it had all the software, and the alternatives (e.g. OS/2) were worse. Once Windows matured, adoption was immediate.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  OS/2 wasn't worse than DOS. OS/2 was (eventually) worse than Windows. The problem with OS/2 was that it was part of IBM's PS/2 strategy, which was designed to create a non-cloneable new PC platform, and thereby return to a high-margin business. Windows, in contrast, chose to keep running on commodity hardware. The market chose "hundreds cheaper" over "technically better". IBM eventually tried to run OS/2 on PC clones, but by then, Windows had too much of a lead to overcome.