Ole Juul
Veteran Member
I think that any of the "my OS is better than yours" discussions are a boring waste of time, but particularly one comparing DOS to Windows (since Windows has always included DOS or a much more powerful CLI). In the 'real world' people are using applications, and (hopefully) never have to deal with the finer points of the OS. For low-level stuff that involves fooling with ports or disk drives directly, DOS is often more convenient, but for pretty well everything else a GUI is probably more efficient (not to mention that most apps require one these days). Seems to me that OJ's DOS example could be done just as easily with a batch file in Windows, clicking on a labelled icon to start the process instead of having to remember (and possibly misspell) the magic key or keys instead.
I think the key is "once properly configured"; if a Windows system's tasks are properly configured then you can be even lazier than in DOS; I usually read my email while relaxing on the couch, cordless mouse in hand, occasionally switching into itunes' library to select some different music, switching to Chrome to check into various forums, etc., never needing to pick up the cordless keyboard except to occasionally enter a search term into Google.
I'm sure that in general we're very much on the same page regarding practical computer use. However, my example can be done with closed eyes and, assuming good ability to wiggle fingers, does not involve potentially painful physical actions. Although definitely not a Windows user, I am well aware of it's functionality and certainly won't argue with you on that count. Personal preferences are important and if Windows will do what you want, that's just great. I did have two basic things in mind with my DOS example though. One is the promotion of DOS as a system that can in fact be set up to do some sophisticated things in an easy manner. Perhaps inspire someone to do that instead of doing a MS style install and leaving it at that. The other, I've talked about in the previous post, and that is the difficulties in using a mouse. My opinion is that it can be a waste of resources for even very functional people, and a downright pain for others.
Bottom line: I've seen very few systems that are truly efficiently configured but when they are, in the DOS vs. Windows comparison I think Windows comes out ahead as the most versatile in most situations; still, it really depends on what you want to do.
I agree that for general computing Windows is way ahead of DOS, as is any modern OS. I think that a few things are better in DOS, and more things are possible than many believe. Assuming my personal choice of command line only, then I do think DOS wins on ease of use. I am reasonably comfortable on a BSD system now. As you know it has a very powerful command line, but I have not been able to muster the same luxurious functionality that I have with the wealth of TSRs and utilities that were developed for DOS during it's early days. Part of this is because DOS is really made for amateurs, whereas BSD generally assumes that you have all day, and the brains, to read and remember lots of stuff.