IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <6731 at ficc.uu.net> korenek at ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes:
>     So why hasn't something better than MS-DOS been developed despite
> MS-DOS?

It has. I listed three alternatives: Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, and SOS. Also
a whole bunch of UNIX lookalikes for the hardware (Lanetix, QNX, etc),
plus real UNIX (I used Version 7 based Xenix on an XT for some time). Apple's
O/S for the Mac has a number of advantages. And how about the Amiga Exec?
That's a real-time O/S with a fast windowing front-end for novices.

The only one of these that's caught on has been the Mac. Why? Only Apple had
a big enough marketing budget to compete with Big Blue.

> I say it's because other companies waited to see if the IBM-PC
> and MS-DOS would live or die (thus letting IBM and MS take the big risk).

What? IBM was a latecomer on the scene. What about Apple, Altos, Tandy,
Commodore, Cromemco, etc, etc, etc...? They were all doing well enough
back in the '70s. IBM didn't enter the market until 1981.

(description of ideal computer that sounds like a 68030-based Amiga
 skipped into email)
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter at ficc.uu.net> <peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>.
 'U`  --------------  +1 713 274 5180.
"That particular mistake will not be repeated.  There are plenty of mistakes
 left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast at cs.vu.nl)