: People criticize DOS mostly because of its memory management. DOS is
: build with the idea that you'll never need more than 640kB of RAM.
: This means that no DOS program can be bigger than that amount. As a
: consequence of this, when PC's started getting more memory solutions
: needed to be found to access that additional memory (hence the EMS
: and XMS drivers).
: Also DOS names have to be in the 8.3 format, which made naming
: documents often difficult.
Good points. I find the 8.3 naming requirement particularly troublesome, however, I don't thing it bothered me until Windows began supporting long file names. In fact I came to DOS from a mainframe environment that allowed only 6 character names, so 8.3 was a great improvement. Meanwhile at home my Commodore 64 allowed 16 character names.
I don't remember how much memory the mainframe I was working on had but I do know that each individual user could access only 64k, so having access to 640k on my DOS machine put me in hog heaven. Even in those days, when Gates "640k is enough for anybody" statement was right on, people were bad mouthing DOS. I've never understood why.
Both the 640k limit and the lack of long file names is something that MicroSoft probably would have addressed had they continued to develop DOS but they didn't.