I guess the correct phrasing is “was”, however I still consider it to be a hybrid as it still makes use of absolutely braindead DOS design/features/limitations because of “backwards compatibility”. Which is ironic, because Linux has better backwards support for DOS & old Windows applications without that legacy crap being apart of the system itself.
it still makes use of absolutely braindead DOS design/features/limitations because of “backwards compatibility”
Like what? Aside from drive letters (which are being slowly sunset in favor of mounting to directories like *nix) I don’t see a lot of legacy stuff from the 8 bit era
Linux has better backwards support for DOS
Via dosbox, which is also available for windows. I wouldn’t call “exactly the same, using the same exact emulator” better.
Like what? Aside from drive letters (which are being slowly sunset in favor of mounting to directories like *nix) I don’t see a lot of legacy stuff from the 8 bit era.
Inability to create files or directories with certain reserved names like “CON”, “PRN”, “AUX”, “NUL”, “COM1-9”, and “LPT1-9”.
Lack of support for modern features like long file paths beyond the 260 character limit in some legacy applications and system components.
Continued inclusion of outdated & unused system components and commands from MS-DOS.
The stupid real-mode architecture of early Windows versions (1.0 & 2.0) still being a thing because “backwards compatibility”.
Windows ≤10’s reliance on legacy BIOS interaction; a remnant of the MS-DOS era; even when Windows 10 is booted in UEFI mode, which is now finally delt with in Windows 11.
The biggest limitation : The Technical debt that effects development in many adverse ways.
There’s a ton more than I listed here. The thing about these old MS-DOS remnants is that they’re not readily noticeable unless you start to really dig into things. A typical surface level joe bob user would never notice them.
Via dosbox, which is also available for windows. I wouldn’t call “exactly the same, using the same exact emulator” better.
DOSBox tends to be faster on Linux compared to Windows. DOSBox configuration, customization and integration with the system is way more flexible on Linux. DOSBox has compatibility with Linux-specific tooling & utilities. Etc.
Compatibility wise, they’re more or less the same, but support wise, Linux has clear advantages.
I guess the correct phrasing is “was”, however I still consider it to be a hybrid as it still makes use of absolutely braindead DOS design/features/limitations because of “backwards compatibility”. Which is ironic, because Linux has better backwards support for DOS & old Windows applications without that legacy crap being apart of the system itself.
Like what? Aside from drive letters (which are being slowly sunset in favor of mounting to directories like *nix) I don’t see a lot of legacy stuff from the 8 bit era
Via dosbox, which is also available for windows. I wouldn’t call “exactly the same, using the same exact emulator” better.
Inability to create files or directories with certain reserved names like “CON”, “PRN”, “AUX”, “NUL”, “COM1-9”, and “LPT1-9”.
Lack of support for modern features like long file paths beyond the 260 character limit in some legacy applications and system components.
Continued inclusion of outdated & unused system components and commands from MS-DOS.
The stupid real-mode architecture of early Windows versions (1.0 & 2.0) still being a thing because “backwards compatibility”.
Windows ≤10’s reliance on legacy BIOS interaction; a remnant of the MS-DOS era; even when Windows 10 is booted in UEFI mode, which is now finally delt with in Windows 11.
The biggest limitation : The Technical debt that effects development in many adverse ways.
There’s a ton more than I listed here. The thing about these old MS-DOS remnants is that they’re not readily noticeable unless you start to really dig into things. A typical surface level joe bob user would never notice them.
DOSBox tends to be faster on Linux compared to Windows. DOSBox configuration, customization and integration with the system is way more flexible on Linux. DOSBox has compatibility with Linux-specific tooling & utilities. Etc.
Compatibility wise, they’re more or less the same, but support wise, Linux has clear advantages.