> The major differences fall into two catagories: First is the
> filesystem, second is what's referred to as a 'kernel.'
The filesystem is not a part of the operating system.
You can run DOS in many different file systems, and you can run Win2000
in many different file systems. I run Win2000 in a Fat32 file system,
for example.
Choosing a file system and choosing an operating system are two
separate choices.
(unless the operating system forces you to use a certain file system)
> -Serial Computing vs Multi-tasking:
> The DOS kernel does one thing at a time and then the next. Win2k's
> kernal and Unix's allow for true multitasking. Whether this is a good
> thing(tm) depends on whether you are a well-organized person <g>. But
> seriously, the raw computing power of your cpu is much more effectively
> used in a multi-tasking environment. This means simultaneous use of
> several apps are handled much more gracefully (no hangs) and speedily.
If you have only one CPU (processor) in your computer no "real
multitasking" is possible, there are only different software solutions
available which allow something that looks like multitasking, with
different degrees of success.
In DOS I used Desqview for 5 years, running a BBS system simultaneously
with my own use of the computer. So multitasking in DOS is no problem.
Win2000 probably handles multitasking better than Win98 because it is a
more modern OS but not because it uses more "real" multitasking than
Win98.
> -Memory Usage:
This is where the big difference is. Win98se has faulty memory
handling, which often leads to crashes. Win2000 has a much better
handling of the memory.
> "shouldn't the US have won the E-league match against Ghana yesterday???"
> (damn right it should've.)
The industrialized part of the world will slip further behind in fields
like sports compared to the third world where people move their bodies
more.
We will find new ways to compete, like in reading comprehension,
thinking rationally, debating, programming, etc..