I didn't get to use IBM's PC-DOS 7.0 although we do have some ThinkPad
R-series models that now come with it sans Winz. I do, however, remember
being very fond with DOS 3.3, which was so robust and stable. And the worse?
MS-DOS 6.0. No question.
Glad to meet someone who used to work for IBM. If you can recall, I am an
IBM Business Partner and it's an honour to meet someone who was behind IBM's
DOS.
Cheers
K.
On 24/05/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> No argument from me. Different strokes for different folks. As to DOS,
> the reason that it worked more reliably for you was that, even if you
> bought it from Microsoft via a clone maker, the bulk of the code was
> previously system tested by my team at IBM... although I didn't get
> there until DOS 3.2 :-) And the ultimate DOS is IBM PC-DOS 7 not to be
> confused with Microsoft DOS 7 which underlies Windows 95. One of my
> developer/testers (the best assembler programmer I know) took it upon
> himself as a personal project to fix every last known bug in Microsoft's
> 6.22. IBM PC-DOS 7 is truly squeaky clean.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
--
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people" - Emily
Cox
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|