Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site sequent.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard
From: richard@sequent.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Who's Next (UNIX v CP/M & MSDOS)
Message-ID: <382@sequent.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 23:42:40 EST
Article-I.D.: sequent.382
Posted: Fri Feb 10 23:42:40 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 00:37:05 EST
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Portland
Lines: 26

I left Victor Technologies (RIP) a while back after spending quite some
time using first CP/M and then MS-DOS.  I was in the Advanced Development
group, so I really know those systems.  I joined a company doing 
development on 4.2BSD.  Recently I turned on my Victor at home, and sat
there feeling crippled!  There was so much that simply *couldn't* be done
with MS-DOS, it wasn't funny.

Having used csh on 4.2, my mind is made up.  There's no question as to
which system is easier to use or more powerful.  For novices, they're
both pretty much dogs.  But does CP/M or MS-DOS have on-line manuals?
How about Learn?  And what's this stuff with "A>" and "B>"?

Admittedly, for unix to become the accepted system it will be, it'll
have to have alot of user-friendlyness added.  But at least with unix,
all you have to do is build a business-user oriented shell.  Or a
word-processor oriented shell. (There's a group creating a menu-driven
shell - don't remember details).  The system is so adaptable, it will
fit all these bills. (Startup idea?: build shell for non-user types?)

Eventually, we'll all be playing with dynabooks with mindlinks, 
thoughtputs, biomolecular circuitry (that's powered of ambient heat
differentials) and learning-expert systems.  But unix increases
productivity from the simpler systems, and that's the key.

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard