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