Andy, you know much more about it than me. My understanding about the DOS legacy is that the problem was too much software used hardware directly, because going through DOS was a loss, even if it could do what you wanted, which it usually couldn't.
For what it's worth, I'm basically in agreement with you that everything should have a command line based interface as an alternative to the GUI. Makes for much easier programmability, also imposes a bit of discipline. As for Win2K, WinCE, Win9x+, etc., that's all Bill's problem. There was a post here or in the other forum about a legion of new 'softies in India, working on Unix programming? Do you think they're doing, or could do, Windows emulation on top of Linux, to tie in with another recent topic? I figure most of what's needed is already done in the form of Unix ports of IE. Is IE for Linux announced? Microsoft could probably sell Windows emulation on top of Linux for the same price as Win9x, but I doubt they would do it in a way that could coexist with native X. Not compatible with the control freak mentality.
As to the man behind the curtain, I've gotten way to many lectures from the fans of Bill about how Microsoft gives the customers what they want. Marketing sure has done a good job convincing everybody that more features wins over sucks less. Have you been following the DNA "initiative", the new unified 8900 APIs or whatever it was supposed to be? Or has that been superceded by Bill's new megaserver "initiative"? I've lost track.
Cheers, Dan. |
