A Thing On A Thing

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 20 Oct 2003 9:43 am

Something funny occurred to me.

Back in the days of Windows 3.1, Mac users always ridiculed the way Windows ran on top of DOS. They called it "a thing on a thing", and said that it wasn't a "real operating system".

Today, Apple's OSX is actually a very pretty user interface that runs on top of Unix. It's "a thing on a thing". Windows XP doesn't even support DOS as a process - it's a "real operating system" in every sense of the word.

Ironic, isn't it?

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 20 Oct 2003 1:29 pm

Yes indeed! I'm glad XP isn't "A thing on a thing". I'm glad to be free of that Thing called DOS.

MS sure got their money's worth out of that product. Not sure I did, but MS did.

It did beat having to toggle switch the program into the 8080 though.

------------------
HagFan

Rich Paton · Post by **Rich Paton** » 20 Oct 2003 9:12 pm

Just out of curiousity, has anyone here had the displeasure of running a "Mini" such as a Data General Nova/III, or having to boot a mainframe such as a Univac 1240MTC or IBM 7090, etc?
Makes Dos look pretty good...
BTW, the 1204MTC ran a Mellonics Corp. of Sunnyvale Ca. software called "SIMON", to track and commmand military satellites. SIMON cost the USAF "Satellite Tracking Community" about $300 million when it passed its "Milestone" quals around 1959-1960. So that's $300 million in 1960 bucks. How much would that be in 2003 $$ ?
But it was, of course, the first system of such scope developed to date, and no blue screens. In about two years of 24/7 use I recall only one system failure, a bad input buffer card on the univac. We switched to the other "side of the house" (the system had two identical installations in one computer room) for the next op, and the on-site Univac field weenies had the sick dynosaur back up in about eight minutes. And when you did get an error code, it actually meant something comprehensible, like an interlock switch ajar or of course an operator induced snafu.
All that stuff has been replaced long since then, but I'd bet my last billion that none of it runs today on XP or any other MS ilk.
Just a few thoughts on the evolution of computer systems...

Don Walters · Post by **Don Walters** » 21 Oct 2003 7:57 am

It did beat having to toggle switch the program into the 8080 though.

I remember a lot of things with fondness ... the above is not one of them.

..although I did think I was having fun at the time ...[This message was edited by Don Walters on 22 October 2003 at 07:57 AM.]

Mark Ardito · Post by **Mark Ardito** » 21 Oct 2003 9:40 am

I wish I could leave DOS. The company where I work still uses a DOS payroll/HR system. I constantly fight with this application to give me the data I need to get it into our database. The application uses flat files and they really stink! I have asked the president of the company to move away from the DOS system for 3 years now. His response..."Is it broken?"

Mark

------------------
Sho~Bud Pro I, Fender D-8 (C6&E13) http://www.darkmagneto.com

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 21 Oct 2003 2:12 pm

I have asked the president of the company to move away from the DOS system for 3 years now. His response..."Is it broken?"

I would answer "yes", and then break it!

Mark Ardito · Post by **Mark Ardito** » 21 Oct 2003 7:29 pm

Bobby,

Man, I wish it was that easy!

Mark

------------------
Sho~Bud Pro I, Fender D-8 (C6&E13) http://www.darkmagneto.com

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 22 Oct 2003 3:40 pm

I still like to have DOS around (that's one reason I haven't upgraded) because there's still some things you can do with DOS that plain 'ol Windows doesn't offer. I used DOSSHELL to view programming code all the time, but Windows demands additional software to do it. Windows is a bear to use when your mouse craps out, too!

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 22 Oct 2003 3:45 pm

Is it DOSSHEAVEN or is it DOSSHELL?
There's a song there if somebody wants to write it. Don't make me listen to it though. I didn't say there was a good song there.

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 23 Oct 2003 10:15 am

Having entered the world of computers AFTER Dos was king, I never could understand how something sooooooooo primitive could be lauded sooo highly by soooo many.

I found it then and now to be about the most user "unfriendly" thing I have encountered since the "now generation" term was coined. Who in this world ever could laud it is beyond my comprehension.

It is as though its sole purpose was to allow some to dazzle others with a myriad of antics that only ended up elevating them in their minds.

Kinda like I heard Buck Owens once say about another musician,

"he's a legend in his own mind"

Thank Jesus for windows. Even with its problems (created by the same bunch that invented Dos), one can get to 1st base. With Dos there was NO basics.. ooops I meant base

sorry if any of you love Dos, did not mean to offend

carl

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 23 Oct 2003 7:23 pm

Carl,

I started out with more primitive command line interpreters (Forth and CP/M), so DOS was actually pretty friendly to me. I also had a Unix job for a few years. I'll admit that windowed environments are easier to use, but for some things (like grep) it's quicker for me to drop down to a shell.

All versions of Windows support a command line interface window. It isn't really 'DOS' in Windows XP, but you can run a program called CMD and get most of the features you expect from a shell.

I was delighted to discover that you can now do the same thing with a Mac. There is a Unix shell window, and from it you can run all of your beloved (dreaded?) Unix utility programs. Nowadays, the Mac isn't much different from the Unix plus X-Windows that I was running 10 years ago. Except that it's faster.

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 24 Oct 2003 4:27 am

b0b,

Thanks for responding. Actually I bought some books on DOS, even though I had no real reason to do it, just to study why such a cumbersome way. As you know DOS commands are based on a given "syntax" which is a fancy word for language a computer "understands".

Having taught binary and hexadecimal; along with diode and tube matrix logic circuits;, long before DOS came out; I realized of course why the syntax. My problem was, and still is, is the non standardization leanings of many of those engaged in developing computers such as Bill Gates and others of his ilk.

If any one doubts this, think of the millions upon millions of times ppl have gone into a computer store and purchased any one or more of a myriad of peripherals, brought it home and agonized for days trying to make the stupid thing work.

I have rarely ever gotten anything (even with the so-called plug and play scenario) to work on the first shot. In all too many cases at least one frustrating call to an 800 number ensued.

Plus, in all too many cases the proverbial, "oh yes, you need a driver to make it work". As if the average computer owner has a clue what a "driver" is. Let alone how to get one; much less know how to program it to work.

Or "your computer is not compatible with this device; unless you ugrade" (to the tune of more money than the peripheral cost)

Bill is a type. And he is a genious of all geniouses. So is Steve Jobes of Mac reknown. As are others. But the problem with both these gentlemen is they have never understood how the brain works in the vast majority of human beings.

So I have had a long standing beef with them. They simply have NEVER understood "KISS", IE,

"Keep it simple stupid".

So they have continued (along with countless others) full steam ahead, all going in entirely different directions, leaving literally millions of people murmering.....

"what?"

Of course Mac, who in essence invented "windows" made a turn for the better, but EVEN here it is fraught with....

"Hahaha dummy, I made it work. Now YOU figure out how to do it". I have found this "attitude" more or less EVERY single time I have ever needed help on my computer NO matter who I called or asked. This forum excepted. (Bless you b0b for this unprecedented thing you have given us).

This is why I have disdain for the entire computer hierarchy. If the automobile or any other invention I can think of had followed their path, NOTHING we know of now would be simple to use. Imagine having to get gasoline on a Saturday morning from ONLY one gas station in town that has gas compatible with your car; and it is closed for the weekend; with a speaker sounding constantly,

"our business hours are from 9 to 5, Monday thru Friday, please come back then". Only to discover when you do wait all weekend and come back "then", the following,

"press 1 to..press 2 to...ALL the way up to press 127 to..." And then after 115 presses, you hear,

"all of our pumpers are helping other customers (how come so many calling for help, said under the callers breath?), you will be connected to the next available agent, er pumper". Only to discover that the "next available pumper" knows less than the person calling that knows nothing about pumping

.

At least these have been my experiences.

oh well.

May Jesus richly bless you and yours dear friend,

carl

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 24 Oct 2003 8:41 am

Correction: the mouse/window concept was invented by Xerox. Apple people were inspired by a tour of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, and subsequently produced the first commercial mouse/window computer: the Lisa. The Macintosh followed shortly thereafter.

I think that Bill Gates is a very sharp and ruthless businessman. I have seen no evidence of any "genius level" talent in him, but some of his employees rise to that level. For example, I was very impressed by Mike Brozak, architect of the Microsoft Foundation Classes, and of course there's our own Dan Tyack (who is no longer a 'Microserf').

And, to the credit of the thousands of people working in Redmond today, I believe that Windows is getting better all the time. I just find it ironic that the Apple folks, who always derided Windows as "a thing on a thing", today embrace an operating system that is, in fact "a thing on a thing".

The bottom line is that both OS architectures work well. Apple's criticisms of early Windows architecture were driven more by market envy than technical reality.

In truth, every program that relies on external, underlying primitives is "a thing on a thing". That includes most of the utilities that are bundled with an OS, as well as all of the applications written for it. There's nothing wrong with standing on the shoulders of the engineers who came before you. That's how progress happens.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 25 Oct 2003 5:45 pm

Carl- a lot of what you say is true in my case too. I wrote programs in the 70's on a Kaypro Cpm, IBM 5100 business basic, Point 4 Iris operating system ,I had to do this in order to help out with my job as a county employee. It was hard work and long hours with no pay.
I like Windows XP, sure nothing like the old days. I notice it is much better the Windows 98. Better crash protection for this old neophyte.

Bob, I agree about Gates. i remember when IBM ws going to get Gary Kiddal to install his CPM on their minis, they missed him and went to Gates, as I read it in a computer magazine, He didn't even have DOS, he bought it from another company in Seattle, and sold it to IBM, non exclusive, so he could sell to any other computer company. he was shrewd about that, the rest is history....al

------------------
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus/

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 25 Oct 2003 9:51 pm

b0b,

This is the first I've heard of "a thing on a thing". I personally don't have a problem with a windowing system sitting on top of a command-prompt OS.... it's just that Unix/Linux/Red Hat is much more powerful and flexible than DOS. Just the file naming limitations of DOS attest to that. I personally think that Apple has done a very good job putting a cool windowing set up on top of a Unix variant. But then, I've been using Unix at the shell level for about 18 years, so I'm biased.

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?

Chuck Halcomb · Post by **Chuck Halcomb** » 26 Oct 2003 2:23 pm

For those interested in the history of computing, such as how Apple learned about the Graphical Interface and how Xerox had it all so far as computing was concerned and let it all get away, you might want to consider reading, DEALERS OF LIGHTNING which is a historical novel detailing the story of Xerox Palo Alto Research Lab. It is a book which if you like computers, once you start it you won't be able to put it down. It was written by Michael Hiltzik and is outstanding.

------------------
Remington Steel T-8 Steelmaster
Gibson Console Grande

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 27 Oct 2003 3:31 pm

Very respectfully b0b, I could not let the article I just read on Yahoo news go by.

------------------------------------------

"Reuters - 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) Bill Gates CEO and chief software architect of Mircrosoft on Monday gave its most detailed look yet at the next version of Windows, code-named "Longhorn," which promises new methods of storing files, tighter links to the Internet, greater security, and fewer annoying reboots."

------------------------------------------

I see no way Bill could not be referred to as a genious with that kind of title. My opinion of course,

carl

Don Walters · Post by **Don Walters** » 27 Oct 2003 10:03 pm

I was delighted to discover that you can now do the same thing with a Mac. There is a Unix shell window, ...

because of that, I may finally spring for a MAC.

But that mouse ...

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 28 Oct 2003 11:12 am

The boss can invent whatever title he wants for himself, Carl. If you really believe that Gates is the "chief software architect" of Longhorn, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Gates is just the demo artist, but that title isn't glamourous enough for the world's richest man.

Bill didn't even design MS-DOS - he bought it from someone who reverse engineered CP/M. Virtually all of Microsoft's success stories are copies of other programs that they beat into submission with their marketing clout. Windows copied the Mac. Developer Studio copied TurboPascal. Excel copied Lotus. IE copied Netscape. It's hard to find a single original product idea in the entire Microsoft catalog.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 31 Oct 2003 3:37 pm

b0b......

You are amone the few people that realized that Bill Gates ripped off the code from another company (well,actually,he bought it from them because they didn't understand the value of the source code). He,as a programmer,isn't any more a computer teck as the rest of us. His fortate was being able to understand the direction the computer was headed !!

I too,as many others,saw the direction things were going,but I didn't have the resources and/or clout to do anything with it.

No doubt,Bill Gates was at the right place at the right time to do the deed.

David Cobb · Post by **David Cobb** » 31 Oct 2003 11:17 pm

So it's true, Bill Gates really is the Devil!

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 1 Nov 2003 9:55 am

he is not a genious.

He ripped everyone off

He stole this and he stole that.

He knows no more about a computer than most of us.

He was just at the right place at the right time.

He really is the devil.

He became the world's richest man and 100% of it was because he did NOT do one single thing good.

Wow!

"let he who hath commited no sin, cast the first stone"

Looks like we got a lot of sinless people here.

Well I have sinned badly. I am a wretched sinner. So please let this sinner call it as I see it.

In my mind,

1. He was a genious; and he still is.

2. While most were asleep he was working coming up with ideas that changed the world for the better like it has never experienced since Jesus created the universe.

3. He is considered by some (I included) as the greatest leader any company ever had.

4. He is asked to speak to people totally outside the computer field on many ocassions.

5. He speaks to those of us who know nothing with a gentle and humble eloquence that I would to God I had.

6. I love him. Whatever sins he has committed I hate. but I love him.

as I do all of you,

"That is my statement and I am sticking to it"

carl

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 2 Nov 2003 6:15 am

Don't get me wrong, Carl - I never called Gates a crook or said that he wasn't computer literate. Of course it takes great talent to lead a large organization of people.

I'm just saying that I've seen no eveidence that he is an above average software engineer, if he is a software engineer at all. To my way of thinking, you have to know something about writing and organizing code before you can call yourself "chief architect" of a large software program. I am a software architect, and I feel confident that I could code circles around the guy.

Bill Gates is as much of a software architect as Walt Disney was an animator. Both became captains of industry, which is another talent altogether, a very special talent. They should have left their old titles behind, though, when they let those skills fall by the wayside. That's my opinion, and the point on which they both lost my respect.

I used to build guitar amplifiers. I knew a lot about them at the time. I don't know much about how amplifiers are built today - it's a skill I've forgotten. It wouldn't be right for me to call myself a "chief amplifier designer" today, would it?

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Rich Paton · Post by **Rich Paton** » 2 Nov 2003 10:55 am

b0b, who is/was the chief "archetect" at MESA? Red Rhodes, during a re-biasing of a new Fender amp, told me that 1). He was (no pun intended) quite instrumental in the design of the "blackface" Twin Reverb amp, and 2). that R. Smith had bought an amp from him and copied its design to come up with the first Boogie model.
If #1 is true, then to an extent #2 is also true, as a look at schematics of Boogies up to the MKIIC are clearly slightly massaged Fender fodder. Just curious about that.
getting back on topic, after trying out XP Pro for a while, I see Whindoze 2006, or WinWXYZ, etc. as the evolved, corpulent sloth progeny of MS, which will take 20 GByte for a minimum "install".
I am seriously looking for Mac or other alternatives in the near future. Bells & whistles are cool, but for me not worth the sheer inundation factor of an O/S that has to be an ever-growing juggernaut. Should I look at Linux again, or are there other options likely to emerge soon?
Has the MAC O/S also grown huge? Thanks!

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 2 Nov 2003 12:20 pm

I haven't been back to Mesa since 1985, but when I left Randy was still very "hands on" when it came to designing new amplifier models. It's all he ever wanted to do, really. Other folks ran the day-to-day operation of the business.

I don't know anything about the Red Rhodes connection. If it's true, it happened before I joined the company.

I'm sure that OSX is quite large, and Linux leaves a lot to be desired as a desktop platform (it's great for Web servers, though!).

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 02 November 2003 at 12:23 PM.]