This hypothetical 32 bit DOS could've had memory protection and multitasking too. Obviously device drivers would add complexity, but it doesn't need to be as complex as it's become.
This hypothetical 32 bit DOS could've had memory protection and multitasking too. Obviously device drivers would add complexity, but it doesn't need to be as complex as it's become.
On the other hand, the stuff that takes "gigabytes of disk and memory" isn't even part of the operating system kernel, so there's no need to start from DOS to get rid of that stuff. It's possible to run linux from a few megabytes of ram.
You're missing the point. There is no single file operating system for desktop users (maybe VxWorks or some other embedded OS falls into that category, but those aren't really for desktops). Modern operating systems sprawl all over the disk. Memory protection and multitasking are not large features, and CS undergrads all over the world routinely implement them in less a semester.
> It's possible to run linux from a few megabytes of ram.
A few megs of ram and a directory in /etc filled with startup stuff and config files. Clearly you don't appreciate it, but there was something really nice about being in the root directory and seeing only command.com and config.sys. The entire rest of the machine was yours to setup however you liked. The things most people hated about DOS really had more to do with the 16 bit address space and segmented architecture.
DOS had other files besides those, but they were hidden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DOS_system_files
You could theoretically make a linux kernel will all the drivers you need linked + basic FS stored as a drive image so you would have fewer files on an image
http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page