Windows is not an OS!!!!
la...@imap1.asu.edu
as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench. WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
snicker!).
*****************************************************************************
| When the heart rules, foolish actions result. | Stephen S. Edwards II at |
| When the mind rules, we are led astray. | Silvertip Productions |
| When the spirit rules, we are invincible! | - la...@asu.edu - |
*****************************************************************************
Russ Forster
> I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
> as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
> An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
> interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
> Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench. WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
> insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
> construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
> simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
> If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
> the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
> snicker!).
>
Under Win '95 click on 'My computer' Icon.
What's the problem?
/Russ
> *****************************************************************************
> | When the heart rules, foolish actions result. | Stephen S. Edwards II at |
> | When the mind rules, we are led astray. | Silvertip Productions |
> | When the spirit rules, we are invincible! | - la...@asu.edu - |
> *****************************************************************************
--
Russ Forster, BC Systems, 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8
RFor...@Galaxy.Gov.BC.CA Office: (604) 389-3186 Fax: (604) 389-3412
Disclaimer: The opinions and statements contained in this posting are the sole
responsibility of the author and have not in any way been reviewed or approved
by my employer or any network service.
Jerry Shekhel
>
>I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
>as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
>An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
>interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
>Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench.
>
The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*. To get
file listings and such, you use the File Manager, another program. The only
thing that makes Program Manager special is that it's the default shell; one
can easily replace it with something that combines the functionality of both
Program manager and File Manager, for example the PC Tools Shell. You are so
ignorant of what makes an OS that I don't know why I'm bothering to reply.
>
>WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
>insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
>construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
>simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
>If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
>the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
>snicker!).
>
What does it mean to "access drives from the Program Manager"? Every time you
double click on an icon in Program Manager, some executable file is loaded
from the disk drive. You can click on "Run" in the "File" menu and type in a
file name to load from the drive.
In any case, this has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether or not Windows
is an OS. The argument is really about its reliance on DOS, but it's a stupid
one because (a) DOS isn't an operating system, and (b) Windows' reliance on
DOS, especially when running with the 32-bit disk driver and file system, is
practically nonexistent.
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
>the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
>snicker!).
Let me say first that you have produced the funniest definition of "OS" so
far... but if you really insist on it, the PM has a pulldown menu labelled
"File", which has a choice "execute", which pops up a window which has a
button called "search". And there you go, accessing your drives from the PM.
Not that I think this is important for Windows being an OS, or that any
program running would be important for making Windows an OS (hint: What do
you think the files "kernel*.*" are?), or that Windows is a _good_ OS, or
that using it will leave your brain cells intact. No way. But you certainly
can access the drives from the PM :-)
Bernie
P.S.: The options may be called slightly differently; The last time I "used"
Windows was several months ago, and it was a German version
Jens 'Judas' Jensen
I agree fully. Windows is just an advanced menu. DOS, OS/2, WB are OSs
but NOT Windows (at least not in its current state!)
****************************************************************************
* Jens 'Judas' Jensen | | Amiga Rules! *
* <32...@but.auc.dk> | | - *
* Vesterbro 15, 3TH | A4000/040 | Nothing comes *
* DK-9000 Aalborg | | even close! *
* Denmark |------------------------| *
* Phone: +45-98167746 |Pleasance for president!| *
****************************************************************************
* WWW: http://www.but.auc.dk/~32jkj *
****************************************************************************
COLBERT
: The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*.
Excerpts from "Supporting and Maintaining Windows 3.1" by Mark Minasi:
"Windows is not an operating system; it's an operating environment."
Traditionally, an operating system does three things:
* It provides a way of organizing files on some kind of mass storage device.
As you probably know, DOS uses a tree-structured directory system. You
may not know that the DOS file system is built not only around this tree-
structured directory; it depends also up on a data structure called the
File Allocation Table, or FAT, to keep track of where each file is located
on disk.
* An operating system provides a set of disk space management tools.
DOS wouldn't be of much use without a way to find out what's on a disk,
how much free space is on the disk, to copy or back up files, to erase
files, or detect internal problems in the directory structure (Something
you find frequently in MSDOS, but rarely in AmigaDOS).
* Operating systems must provide a means to allow a user to choose a
program, load, and execute that program.
Of those three duties, the only one that Windows clearly fulfills is the
last. Its graphical interface provides an alternate method for disk
management to the old DOS command line interface. Windows employs
some capabilities of the 286 and later chips called "protected memory
mode." DOS, however, doesn't work in that protected mode. Whenever a
Windows program needs to do some file input/outplu, Windows must call
upon DOS. To re-activate DOS, Windows must first temporarily abandon this
protected mode; if anything goes wrong during the moment or so that DOS
is in charge - during the file read or write - then your Windows session
may crash.
Hope this clears up this argument!!!
Bob
--
When you C:\WINDOWS\WIN you LOSE!
Jonathan Gapen
In article <3jri4p$p...@news.asu.edu> la...@imap1.asu.edu writes:
> I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
> as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
> An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
> interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
> Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench. WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
> insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
What sort of books have you been reading or what comp sci classes have you
been taking or who have you been talking to to get the odd idea that the
definition of an 'Operating System' is that you can access devices from the
desktop? The commonly accepted definition of an operating system is software
which manages system resources or provides resources to programs. The
definition doesn't include how this works.
Very few people will dispute that UNIX (sans X11) is an operating system,
yet it doesn't even have a GUI and has a significantly different concept of
'devices' than either Windows or AmigaDOS.
> construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
> simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
> If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
> the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
> snicker!).
Windows 3.11 can't run without MS-DOS, but it does significantly change
the operation of the computer, so I would call it properly a 'synthesis' of
Windows/DOS as the OS. I would still call it an operating system, as it does
fit the definitions I've seen.
If you want to access the drives from Program Manager, just choose
'Run...' from the 'File' menu, the hit the Browse button. Quick 'n easy,
n'est pas? Remember that Program Manager is just a shell that runs on top of
Windows proper, you can even change it, if you like, in the SYSTEM.INI file.
And the new shell you choose to run may allow you direct access to devices,
if you like.
Now, I'm an Amiga user forced to use Windows at work and I hate it with a
passion because it is so poorly designed I have to wonder how long the
Microsoft programmers had been in a coma when they created it, but let's at
least get the terminology straight and bash Windoze for what it really is (or
isn't).
--
Jonathan Gapen (jag...@students.wisc.edu)
"It's the Machine's world, don't tell me I ain't got no soul.
When the machines take over, it ain't no place for rock 'n roll."
Drusilla P Ludwig
>I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
>as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
>An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
>interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
>Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench. WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
>insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
>construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
>simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
>If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
>the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
>snicker!).
To me this post sure sounds like a troll, but I'll answer this
anyways...
Why isn't Windows an OS? A plausible definition of an OS is that it
is a manager for computing resources, and Windows does this by running
multiple programs concurrently. It allocates computing time in a
non-preemptive manner... you can access resources from Windows as
well - how about using a printer resource by printing out a file in a
Windows word processor, for instance?
Drew.
George Weatherford
: In article <3jri4p$p...@news.asu.edu>, <la...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
: >I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
: >as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
: To me this post sure sounds like a troll, but I'll answer this
: anyways...
: Why isn't Windows an OS? A plausible definition of an OS is that it
: is a manager for computing resources, and Windows does this by running
: multiple programs concurrently. It allocates computing time in a
: non-preemptive manner... you can access resources from Windows as
: well - how about using a printer resource by printing out a file in a
: Windows word processor, for instance?
: Drew.
I think I agree with the original poster that Windows(TM) is a GUI rather
than an OS. Workbench is a GUI, XWINDOWS is a GUI. Windows is no more of
an OS than either of those. It still needs DOS to function, it may take
over a lot of the functions of DOS but so to the above mentioned GUIs.
George
Chris Wicklein
: I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
I see the interaction between DOS and Windows as being an
operating system different from DOS. That we conventionally call part of
the OS 'DOS' and part 'Windows' is irrelevant. Windows provides a
(rather basic) process supervisory system and considerable softare for
accessing the system resources.
: An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
: interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
: Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench. WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
: insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
: construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
: simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
Remember that MS is also developing platform-independant Windows,
which will be a true OS by anyone's definition.
: If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
: the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
: snicker!).
: *****************************************************************************
: | When the heart rules, foolish actions result. | Stephen S. Edwards II at |
: | When the mind rules, we are led astray. | Silvertip Productions |
: | When the spirit rules, we are invincible! | - la...@asu.edu - |
: *****************************************************************************
--
---
Chris Wicklein (chr...@xnet.com)
student, Harper College, history and mathematics education
A1200 030/28 6Mb, Apple IIGS, HP48GX 8)
Jerry Shekhel
>
> Remember that MS is also developing platform-independant Windows,
>which will be a true OS by anyone's definition.
>
What do you mean "will be"? It's been out for over 1.5 years, and it's called
Windows NT. It runs on Intel x86, MIPS Rx000, and DEC Alpha CPUs, with the
PowerPC version close to shipping. I am posting this using Windows Internet
access software running under NT.
>
>Chris Wicklein (chr...@xnet.com)
>student, Harper College, history and mathematics education
>A1200 030/28 6Mb, Apple IIGS, HP48GX 8)
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
la...@imap1.asu.edu
: I think I agree with the original poster that Windows(TM) is a GUI rather
: than an OS. Workbench is a GUI, XWINDOWS is a GUI. Windows is no more of
: an OS than either of those. It still needs DOS to function, it may take
: over a lot of the functions of DOS but so to the above mentioned GUIs.
Yes, WB is a GUI, but it also allows you to access hard drives and memory
w/o the need of a directory utility (I know, I know, how hard is it to
run File Manager?! :) ). Well said.
Well, at least now I can see there are others on this newsgroup who can
argue intellectually (I mean all of you who responded to this post). I
realize that my original post was really just a bunch of bitching, but I
am the type of person who thinks a spade should be called a spade
(nothing racial in the word 'spade' btw).
I really don't feel that Windows is a bonified OS. Some of you seemed to
think that I was simply saying what I did because I didn't understand
Windows. I appreciate all of your helping suggestions, but I already
throughly understand how to navigate through Windows. I was just trying
to point out that I don't think Windows should be called an OS. Now
something like OS2 Warp on the other hand, yes, that is a genuine OS,
since you have access to all of your devices right there on the DT.
Hmmm... maybe just being an Amiga user for so long has long spoiled me! :)
Anyone else's thoughts?...
Peter Naylor
>In <3jri4p$p...@news.asu.edu> la...@imap1.asu.edu writes:
>>I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
>>as an 'OS!' Windows is NOT an OS, but merely a GUI patch to the shell.
>>An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
>>interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
>>Manager, like ADOS does from the workbench.
I agree, I would by no means call Windoze an OS. However, I'm not sure
your reasoning is valid. Yes, Windoze does suck in that icons do not
appear on the screen to represent drives, and you can't just open windows
and see ALL the files in it. But this isn't what defines it as something
other than an OS.
>The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*. To get
>file listings and such, you use the File Manager, another program. The only
>thing that makes Program Manager special is that it's the default shell; one
>can easily replace it with something that combines the functionality of both
>Program manager and File Manager, for example the PC Tools Shell. You are so
>ignorant of what makes an OS that I don't know why I'm bothering to reply.
Hmmm, yes, I know HEAPS of people who take the easy option of replacing
Program Manager with PC Tools Shell, NOT!!! If it makes things so much
more usable and sensible, shouldn't something like this be a part of the
Windoze package? Windoze is an operating ENVIRONMENT, and a very poorly
featured one I feel, not to mention very ugly. An operating system
provides low level functions for direct access to all the system's
resources, Windoze does not do this, it relies on calling these
functions, at least in some cases.
>>WHY, WHY, WHY do people keep
>>insisting that Windows is an OS??? Frankly, I just don't see how it can be
>>construed as such! Windows is nothing but a GUI patch to MS-DOS, or in
>>simpler terms, an executable program, with a hell of a lot of support files!
>>If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
>>the program manager... I would really be interested to see how (snicker
>>snicker!).
Can't see why you'd want to, if you own a PC that you want to keep, wipe
the hard drive, and install Linux...
>What does it mean to "access drives from the Program Manager"? Every time you
>double click on an icon in Program Manager, some executable file is loaded
>from the disk drive. You can click on "Run" in the "File" menu and type in a
>file name to load from the drive.
Well, there you go, exactly HOW does Windoze get access to these files?
By using MSDOG function calls that's how.
>In any case, this has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether or not Windows
>is an OS. The argument is really about its reliance on DOS, but it's a stupid
>one because (a) DOS isn't an operating system, and (b) Windows' reliance on
>DOS, especially when running with the 32-bit disk driver and file system, is
>practically nonexistent.
Well, it was very close to hitting on the weaknesses of Windoze. How is
it that you can tell me that "Microsoft Disk Operating System" isn't an
operating system? Are you trying to tell me that Microsoft are so stupid
they've been misnaming their products for years? Wouldn't really
surprise me... by the way, thanks for confirming that Windoze (be it in
16 or 32 bit mode) RELIES on DOS. The point is, MSDOS defines the
filesystem, Windoze uses it, in my book that makes MSDOS the operating
system, and Windoze just a funny little application which sits on top of DOS.
Pete
{---------------------------------------------------------------------------}
{- ______ ______ _ _ Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student -}
{ | | | |\ | The University of Queensland, Australia }
{ |____| | | \ | e431...@student.uq.edu.au (Preferred) }
{ | | | \ | [OR: ro...@130.102.9.70 (When online!)] }
{- | \___| | \| Amiga3000/25 10M RAM, 930M HD, Ados3.1, NetBSD -}
{___________________________________________________________________________}
Daniel L Roberts
: George Weatherford (geo...@falcon.eng.hou.compaq.com) wrote:
: : I think I agree with the original poster that Windows(TM) is a GUI rather
: : than an OS. Workbench is a GUI, XWINDOWS is a GUI. Windows is no more of
: : an OS than either of those. It still needs DOS to function, it may take
: : over a lot of the functions of DOS but so to the above mentioned GUIs.
: Yes, WB is a GUI, but it also allows you to access hard drives and memory
: w/o the need of a directory utility (I know, I know, how hard is it to
: run File Manager?! :) ). Well said.
: Well, at least now I can see there are others on this newsgroup who can
: argue intellectually (I mean all of you who responded to this post). I
: realize that my original post was really just a bunch of bitching, but I
: am the type of person who thinks a spade should be called a spade
: (nothing racial in the word 'spade' btw).
: I really don't feel that Windows is a bonified OS. Some of you seemed to
: think that I was simply saying what I did because I didn't understand
: Windows. I appreciate all of your helping suggestions, but I already
: throughly understand how to navigate through Windows. I was just trying
: to point out that I don't think Windows should be called an OS. Now
: something like OS2 Warp on the other hand, yes, that is a genuine OS,
: since you have access to all of your devices right there on the DT.
: Hmmm... maybe just being an Amiga user for so long has long spoiled me! :)
: Anyone else's thoughts?...
Actually, the only thing I have to add is that you are not quite correct
on the OS2 Warp statement. You see, OS/2 IS an operating system, but it
is not GUI based. You see, the actual OS, like ADOS, can be run without
the GUI. The GUI (Presentation Manager) is loaded after the OS is
loaded. So, like Workbench, the GUI is just a prettier way of dealing
with the OS. It seems that any system is going to be like that... I
guess it just makes it seem more like the OS when you don't have to buy
or add anything extra to get a GUI (Windows, X). Just my two cents worth...
Dan
Lars Vagle
First question I ask you: What is an OS ?
la...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:
: An OS allows you to access devices, as well as SW from the main
: interface. Windows allows no direct access to devices from the Program
: Manager,
: If anyone disagrees with this, then tell me how to access my drives from
: the program manager.
PROGMAN.EXE is just a small program that showes some icons and allows
you to start other programs. No one has EVER said that it does anything
more.
Excuse me for laughing but you should read one of those books called
"Inside Windows", NO OFFENCE.
So let's not waste more bandwith on NEWS with this stuff :-)
Jerry Shekhel
>
>Hmmm, yes, I know HEAPS of people who take the easy option of replacing
>Program Manager with PC Tools Shell, NOT!!! If it makes things so much
>more usable and sensible, shouldn't something like this be a part of the
>Windoze package?
>
Yes, and that's why Chicago (or '95, or whatever they decide to call it next
week) works like that.
>
>An operating system
>provides low level functions for direct access to all the system's
>resources, Windoze does not do this, it relies on calling these
>functions, at least in some cases.
>
Wrong. Windows provides direct access (not through DOS) to the keyboard, the
mouse, the graphics hardware, the audio hardware, and the PC's memory. With
the 32-bit disk driver and filesystem (which are part of Windows, not DOS),
Windows provides direct access to hard disk drives as well. What's left?
Floppies and CD-ROMs. Windows goes through DOS for those. That's all.
>>
>>What does it mean to "access drives from the Program Manager"? Every time
>>you double click on an icon in Program Manager, some executable file is
>>loaded from the disk drive. You can click on "Run" in the "File" menu and
>>type in a file name to load from the drive.
>
>Well, there you go, exactly HOW does Windoze get access to these files?
>By using MSDOG function calls that's how.
>
Not necessarily (see above).
>
>How is
>it that you can tell me that "Microsoft Disk Operating System" isn't an
>operating system? Are you trying to tell me that Microsoft are so stupid
>they've been misnaming their products for years? Wouldn't really
>surprise me...
>
Why do you believe the box that says "Disk Operating System" and not the one
that says "Windows Operating System"? Try looking at what these packages do,
not what's on the box. DOS is a small library of disk access routines. Its
device support is practically nonexistent for anything other than storage
devices, its process management is completely nonexistent, and its memory
management might as well be (which is why DOS development systems like
Borland's have their own memory allocation routines). It never really runs
at all -- it's just a library that's always resident. At best it is a
monitor, but no way is it an operating system. On the other hand, everything
that makes an OS an OS is in Windows.
>
>by the way, thanks for confirming that Windoze (be it in
>16 or 32 bit mode) RELIES on DOS. The point is, MSDOS defines the
>filesystem, Windoze uses it, in my book that makes MSDOS the operating
>system, and Windoze just a funny little application which sits on top of DOS.
>
Ridiculous. Windows has its own code that implements the FAT file
system. Heck, Linux runs the FAT file system, and that doesn't make *it* any
less than an operating system, does it? Windows has its own memory
management, process management, resource management, and drivers for almost
all the devices on a PC. It has its own executable file format which DOS
cannot read. It has its own API. For accessing a small number of devices
(floppies and CD-ROMs), it uses the resident library of routines known as DOS,
just as DOS may in turn use the resident library of routines known as BIOS.
Windows is *clearly* an OS.
>Pete
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>Traditionally, an operating system does three things:
>
>* It provides a way of organizing files on some kind of mass storage device.
>[SNIP]
>* An operating system provides a set of disk space management tools.
>[SNIP]
>* Operating systems must provide a means to allow a user to choose a
> program, load, and execute that program.
>
>Of those three duties, the only one that Windows clearly fulfills is the
>last. Its graphical interface provides an alternate method for disk
>management to the old DOS command line interface. Windows employs
>some capabilities of the 286 and later chips called "protected memory
>mode." DOS, however, doesn't work in that protected mode. Whenever a
>Windows program needs to do some file input/outplu, Windows must call
>upon DOS. To re-activate DOS, Windows must first temporarily abandon this
>protected mode;
>
This is simply incorrect. Windows, when running with FastDisk and VFAT/VCACHE
activated, easily fulfills all of the requirements above without relying on
any DOS code. Try again?
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Gerard McDermott
>In <3jri4p$p...@news.asu.edu> la...@imap1.asu.edu writes:
>>
>
>The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*. To get
>file listings and such, you use the File Manager, another program. The only
>thing that makes Program Manager special is that it's the default shell; one
>can easily replace it with something that combines the functionality of both
>Program manager and File Manager, for example the PC Tools Shell. You are so
>ignorant of what makes an OS that I don't know why I'm bothering to reply.
Nice patronising stuff there. Unfortunately it doesn't make up for being
incorrect. Always remember to punch the other guy in the nose if you start
losing an argument.
> [heaps deleted from both parties - is not - is too]
>
>In any case, this has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether or not Windows
>is an OS. The argument is really about its reliance on DOS, but it's a stupid
>one because (a) DOS isn't an operating system, and (b) Windows' reliance on
>DOS, especially when running with the 32-bit disk driver and file system, is
>practically nonexistent.
If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today) and
I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I have no
copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today). How much of my
stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
Gerard. //
(\X/ Amiga by choice)
===============================================================================
Gerard McDermott e-mail: g...@tusc.com.AU
TUSC Computer Systems (disclaimers apply)
666 Doncaster Road phone: +61 3 8402222
Doncaster Australia 3108 fax: +61 3 8402277
===============================================================================
Iain Bennett
: I keep hearin' people (PC users, Amiga users, everyone) refer to Windows
--
_ _ _ _
|_|_|_| \ Iain Bennett ug94...@Omega.SCS.Carleton.ca
|_|_ _ / Computer Science II tek...@resudox.net
|_|_|_| \ Feedback Communications Limited (UK).
|_|_____/ webSTATE Administration http://www.feedback.com/808
This message has been processed through IainMail (tm) for extra stupidity.
rafal wiosna
In your letter to All dated Mon Mar 13 1995 in C.S.A.ADVOCACY you wrote:
DPL> Why isn't Windows an OS? A plausible definition of an OS is that it
DPL> is a manager for computing resources, and Windows does this by running
DPL> multiple programs concurrently. It allocates computing time in a
DPL> non-preemptive manner... you can access resources from Windows as
DPL> well - how about using a printer resource by printing out a file in a
DPL> Windows word processor, for instance?
If it is an OS, why it needs MS-DOS to work then? (notice "OS" in
MS-DOS).
I prefer name 'WinDOS' -- Windows for DOS. It really tells what so
called Windows are.
- Rafal Wiosna /// -
( UUCP Dialup connection )
Mike Rivers
JS> BIOS.
JS> Windows is *clearly* an OS.
Windows is clearly not an OS. It will not run without DOS. It does not
fulfill *all* the requirements of and OS.
Windows is an Operating _Environment_.
JS> >Pete
JS> Jerry
JS> j...@ix.netcom.com
* Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today) and
>I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I have no
>copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today). How much of my
>stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
If you have a copy of DOS, and have a PC which has the BIOS chips removed,
how much of your DOS stuff will run?
Does this mean that DOS isn't an operating system?
There is a thing in OS literature called a boot loader. You know, linux is a
full 32 bit protected mode OS. It still won't run on a 376 (the protected
mode only version of the 386), because it needs real mode to load itself.
Bernie
rafal wiosna
In your letter to All dated Mon Mar 13 1995 in C.S.A.ADVOCACY you wrote:
JS> The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*. To
What does Program Manager do? It displays icons and runs programs.
How are programs run? By loading it from the disk and executing them.
What does load and execute program files? MS-DOS, not Windows. To use
32-bit disk access Windows PATCHES the MS-DOS. Win does not make file system,
ie. does not update FAT, delete files etc. MS-DOS does this.
But here's the kicker: why does Windows need MS-DOS to run? If it's an
OS it shouldn't need MS-DOS.
Windows is just a GUI, same thing with Workbench and X-Windows. To give
some credit, Windows does add some sort of (very faulty) cooperative
multitasking (or should I write -- task-switching). But it could be done to any
non-tasking computer, C64 -- look at GEOS. BUT IT STILL DOES NOT MAKE GEOS AN
OS.
Jerry Shekhel
>>
>>The Program Manager is just a program running under the Windows *OS*. To
>>get file listings and such, you use the File Manager, another program. The
>>only thing that makes Program Manager special is that it's the default
>>shell; one can easily replace it with something that combines the
>>functionality of both Program manager and File Manager, for example the PC
>>Tools Shell. You are so ignorant of what makes an OS that I don't know why
>>I'm bothering to reply.
>
>Nice patronising stuff there. Unfortunately it doesn't make up for being
>incorrect. Always remember to punch the other guy in the nose if you start
>losing an argument.
>
OK. What did I say above that was incorrect? That PM is just a Windows
program like any other? That it's the default shell? That it's easily
replaceable? That the other guy (who said that Windows is not an OS because
PM doesn't let him "access" the drives) doesn't know a thing about operating
systems? Nope, sorry, but I was correct on every count.
>
>If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today) and
>I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I have no
>copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today). How much of
>my stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
>
No, you can't start program manager and none of your stuff will run. What's
your point?
>
>Gerard.
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>If it is an OS, why it needs MS-DOS to work then? (notice "OS" in MS-DOS).
>
If MS-DOS is an OS, why does it need BIOS to work?
>
>I prefer name 'WinDOS' -- Windows for DOS. It really tells what so
>called Windows are.
>
Ooh, how clever.
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
> What does Program Manager do? It displays icons and runs programs.
>
Right.
>
> How are programs run? By loading it from the disk and executing them.
>
Right.
>
> What does load and execute program files? MS-DOS, not Windows.
>
Wrong. MS-DOS is incapable of loading or executing Windows-format executable
files. Windows loads, allocates resources, and executes its own programs.
>
>To use 32-bit disk access Windows PATCHES the MS-DOS. Win does not make
>file system, ie. does not update FAT, delete files etc. MS-DOS does this.
>
Wrong again. The 32-bit disk access driver and filesystem do not *patch*
MS-DOS, they *bypass* it. It is impossible to patch MS-DOS with 32-bit
drivers and filesystems; if it were, such drivers and filesystems would be
used without Windows. They are not.
>
>But here's the kicker: why does Windows need MS-DOS to run? If it's an
>OS it shouldn't need MS-DOS.
>
MS-DOS is used to load Windows. I challenge you to post a textbook definition
of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of software cannot
be used to load it.
>
>Windows is just a GUI, same thing with Workbench and X-Windows. To give
>some credit, Windows does add some sort of (very faulty) cooperative
>multitasking (or should I write -- task-switching).
>
Windows is not just a GUI. GUIs don't take over the computer's hardware and
manage it. GUIs don't have their own executable programs. GUIs don't
implement processes, file systems, or virtual memory. These are the functions
performed by operating systems. Windows performs them, and therefore it *is*
an operating system.
By the way, you really should learn the difference between
cooperative multitasking and task-switching.
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Douglas Pokorny
>>To use 32-bit disk access Windows PATCHES the MS-DOS. Win does not make
>>file system, ie. does not update FAT, delete files etc. MS-DOS does this.
>>
>Wrong again. The 32-bit disk access driver and filesystem do not *patch*
>MS-DOS, they *bypass* it. It is impossible to patch MS-DOS with 32-bit
>drivers and filesystems; if it were, such drivers and filesystems would be
>used without Windows. They are not.
Neither of these statements is 100% correct. Windows still executes
int 21h calls to perform file access, just as if it were using DOS.
The 32bfa and 32bda simply replace the appropriate int 21h handlers by
replacing their entries in the interrupt table.
In essense, DOS doesn't get called, but Windows originally tried to
perform a DOS call. Whether you want to call this patching, bypassing,
or re-vectoring, is up for discussion.
>Jerry
>j...@ix.netcom.com
-Douglas
------------------------+------------------------------------
Douglas R. Pokorny | Happily running:
d...@camelot.bradley.edu | OS/2 3.0 & Workplace Shell
| MS-Windows NT 3.5
This mesage posted with | Linux 1.1 & OpenLook X-Windows
OS/2 3.0's SLIP software| PC-DOS 6.3 & MS-Windows 3.11
------------------------+------------------------------------
Gerard McDermott
>
> [I asked what runs if you have Windoze but no DOS]
>
>If you have a copy of DOS, and have a PC which has the BIOS chips removed,
>how much of your DOS stuff will run?
And if I have a PC without a power supply...
>Does this mean that DOS isn't an operating system?
Does that mean that the electricity isn't an operating system ?
This is all really silly. Windoze is just a graphical program loader
interface with a few extras thrown in and nearly all functionality
usually expected of a windowing interface removed.
Procyon
My book in Operating systems says that the major task of an operating system
is to provide the processes with an effiecient utilisation of the system's
resources, such as I/O, memory, CPU, etc.
IMHO does Windows/MSDOS fail to all these criterias, and are therefor no
operating systems. It not efficient to allow a process to have all CPU time
(i.e. no multitasking), 640kb barrier is no efficient memory utilization,
locking the system while performing IO is no efficient I/O.
The same go for Macintosh:
No multitasking, static heap memory allocation, I/O lock the system.
Using dangling pointers in a system with builtin MMU for memory
mapping is insane. By forcing a A-line emulation by each system call
is waste of CPU, especially when the whole system and applications
all run in supervisormode, which means that there is no need for
go from usermode to supervisormode with a trap. Anyway, what's
wrong with using the TRAP function instead of Axxx?
I mean, using 'dc.w $A9F4' to exit an application, it could be a joke,
but it is a Mac systemcall... The Apple guys must been intentionally
crippling the system...
However, the task of an *DISK* Operating System (not the same as OS)
might be file storage/access. Just like the AmigaDOS part of the
Amiga Operating System or the filesystems under Unix.
No unix user (with any portion of intelligence) would refer to the
filesystems as operating systems.
---
/Henrik : hwe...@hermes.hv.se
x/|\x
((`- -')) "Hacking on sandman's door..."
__.oOo.__(_)__.oOo.__
Mike Rivers
JS> *patch*
JS> MS-DOS, they *bypass* it. It is impossible to patch MS-DOS with 32-bit
JS> drivers and filesystems; if it were, such drivers and filesystems would
JS> be
JS> used without Windows. They are not.
I'ld suspect these drivers are 32 bit interfaces to DOS interrupts, as
disk organization (filenames(8.3). diskstructure etc.) are the same as
DOS.
This would be similar to how the various Amiga floppy filesystems
still use the builtin 'trackdisk.device' to access the floppy.
JS> >But here's the kicker: why does Windows need MS-DOS to run? If it's an
JS> >OS it shouldn't need MS-DOS.
JS> MS-DOS is used to load Windows. I challenge you to post a textbook
JS> definition
JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of software
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JS> cannot be used to load it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
require another OS to load itself?
JS> Windows is not just a GUI. GUIs don't take over the
JS> computer's hardware and manage it.
Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
Intuition takes control of the graphics subsytem in the
Amiga, It certainly isn't an OS.
JS> GUIs don't have their own executable programs.
Some games have there own format for executable modules. are they OS's?
JS> GUIs don't implement processes, file systems, or virtual memory.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
Some may also use some form of multitasking.
JS> These are the functions performed by operating systems. Windows
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JS> performs them, and therefore it *is* an operating system.
And some games.
Therefore, games are OS's -or- Windows is some sort of cruel game.
Windows is an extension of MS-DOS.
Jerry Shekhel
>
>I'ld suspect these drivers are 32 bit interfaces to DOS interrupts, as
>disk organization (filenames(8.3). diskstructure etc.) are the same as
>DOS.
>
You suspect wrong. If these drivers were simply 32-bit interfaces to the DOS
interrupts, the best they could do is match DOS's performance. They don't; in
fact, they are much faster than DOS. It is therefore obvious that they
replace DOS.
>
>JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of sofware
>JS> cannot be used to load it.
>
>well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
>require another OS to load itself?
>
Take a look at any of the new Alpha and MIPS machines designed for Windows NT.
They have complete DOS-compatible "operating systems" in ROM, capable of
running text-mode programs off standard FAT-formatted floppies and CD-ROMs.
These ROM-based "DOS"es are required to load the respective versions of NT.
Does this mean that NT is not an OS? Hardly.
Heck, the built-in monitor/booter on a Sun Sparcstation is probably more of an
operating system than MS-DOS. Does that mean that SunOS is not an operating
system? Guess again.
>
>Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
>Intuition takes control of the graphics subsytem in the
>Amiga, It certainly isn't an OS.
>[...]
>Some games have there own format for executable modules. are they OS's?
>[...]
>Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
>Some may also use some form of multitasking.
>[...]
>And some games.
>Therefore, games are OS's -or- Windows is some sort of cruel game.
>[...]
>Windows is an extension of MS-DOS.
>
Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and GUIs
implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece of
software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then why
shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those services
(not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then what
does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal Kombat
for the Genesis is an operating system.
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
joc...@utdallas.edu
MSDOS.SYS, and COMMAND.COM. Delete *only* COMMAND.COM and see how
*beautifully* Windoze SIMPLY runs. I mean, gee, if it's not in
\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\, who needs them, right?
Gosh, I had gotten a general protection fault in Windoze, lost my Program
Manager AND managed to downgrade 3.11 to look and run like 3.1. Hmmm...
NOT TO MENTION my Telemate for Dos (communications program) multitasks
better then Windoze. Hell, it can be printing a file and I can be reading a
directory and the file won't pause in printing.
Now, let me just get MS Word 6.0 to *attempt* to print a 30 page
document. Ok, okay, so I DON'T do this *pseudo* multi(cough, gag,
gasp)tasking that Windoze CLAIMS, and MS Word STILL freaks after page,
oh..say, THREE?? (But OS/2 solved that problem. ;) )
I just regret discovering Amigas so late in the game. :(
--
/\___/\ Peace.
( o o )
=== v ===
)---( joc...@utdallas.edu
Peter Naylor
>Why isn't Windows an OS? A plausible definition of an OS is that it
>is a manager for computing resources, and Windows does this by running
>multiple programs concurrently. It allocates computing time in a
>non-preemptive manner... you can access resources from Windows as
>well - how about using a printer resource by printing out a file in a
>Windows word processor, for instance?
Plausible to you perhaps... my definition of an operating system is an
interface for low-level access to system resources. You then run
applications on this interface which call functions from DOS to access
the resources. Windoze is an application which calls and manages (to
some degree) other applications. That's the way I see it anyway, and I
haven't even mentioned what an ugly, frustrating GUI it has either.
MenTaT - !Productions
>JS> MS-DOS is used to load Windows. I challenge you to post a textbook
>JS> definition
>JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of software
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>JS> cannot be used to load it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
>require another OS to load itself?
Emacs! :) (And yes, Emacs is an OS of sorts. Doesn't fit the strict
definitions, but it's close enough...)
--
GCS -d+ H+ s++:- g+ p? !au a- w+++ !Productions 1995
v* C+++ UB+++A++++ P++ L++ E+ N+++ Note new email address!
K+ !W--- M-- V po- Y+ t++ 5+ jx G?
R tv++ D- B--- e+ u** h f r++ !n y+ "No matter where you go, there you are."
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
>require another OS to load itself?
It's really sad how few people have read Tracy Kidder's "the sould of a new
machine". The "new machine", the Data General Nova, needs another _computer_
(a DG Eclipse) to do anything, for example loading its microcode, and later
on, yes, the OS...... Now isn't the Nova a computer, or isn't its OS an OS?
>Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
Do they manage the resources and make them available to other apps?
BTW, most games for real OSs certainly don't take over the machine. They
simply can't!
>Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
Very strange games, that is.... I have heard of databases speaking to the
raw disk device, and of very very old C64 and Apple ][ games, but everything
newer.... Have you ever heard of networks?
Bernie
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>Emacs! :) (And yes, Emacs is an OS of sorts. Doesn't fit the strict
>definitions, but it's close enough...)
September 17, 1997: Richard Stallmann releases GNU Hurd 1.0. It boots from
vmhurd.el :-)
Bernie
rafal wiosna
In your letter to Rafal Wiosna dated Mon Mar 20 1995 in C.S.A.ADVOCACY you
wrote:
>> If it is an OS, why it needs MS-DOS to work then? (notice "OS" in
>> MS-DOS).
JS> If MS-DOS is an OS, why does it need BIOS to work?
BIOS does not even manage files and filesystem. It's just a library of
low-level hardware routines. A bad library, often bypassed by programmers.
>> I prefer name 'WinDOS' -- Windows for DOS. It really tells what so
>> called Windows are.
JS> Ooh, how clever.
Yeah, isn't it? 8^)
rafal wiosna
In your letter to All dated Mon Mar 20 1995 in C.S.A.ADVOCACY you wrote:
>> What does load and execute program files? MS-DOS, not Windows.
JS> Wrong. MS-DOS is incapable of loading or executing Windows-format
JS> executable files. Windows loads, allocates resources, and executes its
own
JS> programs.
MS-DOS does load such a program. It's the program that refuses to run
without Windoze.
If I follow your way of thinking, I should call the contents of the
file WIN32S.ZIP a new OS, since it patches Windows, enabling it to run 32-bit
applications...
JS> Wrong again. The 32-bit disk access driver and filesystem do not *patch*
JS> MS-DOS, they *bypass* it. It is impossible to patch MS-DOS with 32-bit
JS> drivers and filesystems; if it were, such drivers and filesystems would be
JS> used without Windows. They are not.
JS> MS-DOS is used to load Windows. I challenge you to post a textbook
JS> definition of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of
JS> software cannot be used to load it.
To put together two answers: maybe so (about the 32-bit disk drivers),
but still Windoze cannot be run without MS-DOS... Reversely, it's possible (ie.
MS-DOS can be run without Windows). Which one is an OS?
JS> Windows is not just a GUI. GUIs don't take over the computer's hardware
JS> and manage it.
Well, since MS-DOS is very limited, Windows HAS TO take over the
hardware in many ways. So what? PC-Task does it also...
JS> GUIs don't have their own executable programs.
They execute, but under DOS they refuse to work. Some thing with
X-Windows program that can't be run without X-Windows...
JS> GUIs don't implement processes, file systems, or virtual memory.
So what?
Desqview implement processes. Some DOS device program does virtual
memory.
What filesystem Windows introduce? Isn't it a FAT?
JS> These are the functions performed by operating systems. Windows
Yes, of course. But since MS-DOS is the _OS_ of PC computers, and lacks
such features, Windows HAS TO provide them. It's like three programs put
together (cooperative multitasker, virtual memory manager, GUI). Still, that
does not make Windows an OS.
JS> By the way, you really should learn the difference between
JS> cooperative multitasking and task-switching.
It know the difference, I was sarcastic. 8^)
Jerry Shekhel
>
>JS> You suspect wrong. If these drivers were simply 32-bit interfaces to
>JS> the DOS
>JS> interrupts, the best they could do is match DOS's performance. They
>JS> don't; in
>JS> fact, they are much faster than DOS. It is therefore obvious that they
>JS> replace DOS.
>
>Windows faster than DOS? I've never noticed a speed increase in Windows
>as apposed to DOS when to I/O to the HD, Floppy, Printer. etc...
>
Maybe you don't use the 32-bit drivers? Maybe you haven't done any I/O speed
measurement?
>
>And if what you say were true, then DOS wouldn't be able to access any of
>those while Windows is running. It's obvious that DOS can, and although
>I know we're talking about MS software, I seriously doubt that they
>would allow both DOS and Windows to have separate disk managment.
>
Windows emulates a DOS environment for DOS applications. So when you're
running Windows' disk driver and file system, Windows is accessing those
devices, not DOS, regardless of the type of application running on top.
>
>JS> Take a look at any of the new Alpha and MIPS machines designed for
>JS> Windows NT.
>
>JS> They have complete DOS-compatible "operating systems" in ROM, capable of
>JS> running text-mode programs off standard FAT-formatted floppies and CD-
>JS> ROMs.
>JS> These ROM-based "DOS"es are required to load the respective versions of
>JS> NT.
>JS> Does this mean that NT is not an OS? Hardly.
>
>That would depend on how much WinNT depends on those ROM bases DOS's.
>If WinNT is too dependent on those DOS'es then I would call WinNT an
>extention to those DOS's.
>
I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but it hardly matters what *you* would call
WinNT. The term "operating system" has existed for a long time, and your
bizarre notions are not about to change that definition. I'm not sure where
you got this "self-bootability" requirement, but it's simply not part of any
published, accepted definition of "operating system".
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Rivers
JS> writes:
JS> >
JS> >I'ld suspect these drivers are 32 bit interfaces to DOS interrupts, as
JS> >disk organization (filenames(8.3). diskstructure etc.) are the same as
JS> >DOS.
JS> >
JS> You suspect wrong. If these drivers were simply 32-bit interfaces to
JS> the DOS
JS> interrupts, the best they could do is match DOS's performance. They
JS> don't; in
JS> fact, they are much faster than DOS. It is therefore obvious that they
JS> replace DOS.
Windows faster than DOS? I've never noticed a speed increase in Windows
as apposed to DOS when to I/O to the HD, Floppy, Printer. etc...
And if what you say were true, then DOS wouldn't be able to access any of
those while Windows is running. It's obvious that DOS can, and although
I know we're talking about MS software, I seriously doubt that they
would allow both DOS and Windows to have separate disk managment.
JS> >
JS> >JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of
JS> sofware
JS> >JS> cannot be used to load it.
JS> >
JS> >well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
JS> >require another OS to load itself?
JS> >
JS> Take a look at any of the new Alpha and MIPS machines designed for
JS> Windows NT.
JS> They have complete DOS-compatible "operating systems" in ROM, capable of
JS> running text-mode programs off standard FAT-formatted floppies and CD-
JS> ROMs.
JS> These ROM-based "DOS"es are required to load the respective versions of
JS> NT.
JS> Does this mean that NT is not an OS? Hardly.
That would depend on how much WinNT depends on those ROM bases DOS's.
If WinNT is too dependent on those DOS'es then I would call WinNT an
extention to those DOS's.
JS> Heck, the built-in monitor/booter on a Sun Sparcstation is probably more
JS> of an
JS> operating system than MS-DOS. Does that mean that SunOS is not an
JS> operating
JS> system? Guess again.
I'm not familiar with Sun's.
JS> Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and
JS> GUIs
JS> implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece
JS> of
JS> software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then
JS> why
JS> shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those
JS> services
JS> (not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then
JS> what
JS> does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal
I would say an OS shouldn't rely on another OS, at all.
As far as Windows goes, it's could well be called a very moduler DOS
application. (a canidate for someone's sig's tag line, perhaps?)
But hey, what an idea. A self booting OS. I can't wait til MicroSoft
'invents' that too.
JS> Kombat
JS> for the Genesis is an operating system.
I've not programmed the Genesis. But by your 'definition', it's very
possible that MK is an OS.
JS> Jerry
JS> j...@ix.netcom.com
Joseph Richter Jr
--snip snip--
> NOT TO MENTION my Telemate for Dos (communications program) multitasks
> better then Windoze. Hell, it can be printing a file and I can be
> reading a
> directory and the file won't pause in printing.
Sounds more like print-spooling than tasking.
> Now, let me just get MS Word 6.0 to *attempt* to print a 30 page
> document. Ok, okay, so I DON'T do this *pseudo* multi(cough, gag,
> gasp)tasking that Windoze CLAIMS, and MS Word STILL freaks after page,
> oh..say, THREE?? (But OS/2 solved that problem. ;) )
Perhaps this proggy doesn't spool, or have enough of a buffer for spooling?
> I just regret discovering Amigas so late in the game. :(
I regret it too, for many would-be Amiga users.
> --
> /\___/\ Peace.
> ( o o )
> === v ===
> )---( joc...@utdallas.edu
>
__
*-----------------------------------///miga!-------------------------------*
| jric...@tbag.tscs.com __ /// Intuition, not 'intel' inside! |
| Jr@1:377/71 fidonet /\\\ /// "Multitasking/Multi-media since '85" |
| Plant City, FL U.S.A. /--\\\/// Amiga. I made up my OWN mind! |
*-------------------------/ \XX/----------------------------------------*
| AmiQWK 2.7 - S/N 0306 |
... Pound head against keyboard to continue...1>
Jeremy Reimer
: mri...@tbag.tscs.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
: >well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
: >require another OS to load itself?
: It's really sad how few people have read Tracy Kidder's "the sould of a new
: machine".
Just an aside-- this is an EXCELLENT book and should be required reading
for c.s.a.a. Even though it is about minis, not microcomputers (few
these days even remember the difference, sadly) it is a GREAT read and
has many of the elements of the whole Amiga situation-- brilliant,
maverick engineers, human drama, colorful and interesting personalities,
the true hacker ethic, sleepless nights, conflict, triumph, tragedy, and
a corporate entity that can't tell it's ass from it's elbow and couldn't
sell or market to save its life.
If anyone ever writes a book about Commodore and the Amiga (and they
bloody well ought to--there are a lot of great stories in there) they
should read this book to find out how to do it properly.
Jeremy
Terry Palfrey
Care to stick a date on that book?
Hehe heh heh...sigh
Terry
Peter Naylor
>>I'ld suspect these drivers are 32 bit interfaces to DOS interrupts, as
>>disk organization (filenames(8.3). diskstructure etc.) are the same as
>>DOS.
>You suspect wrong. If these drivers were simply 32-bit interfaces to the DOS
>interrupts, the best they could do is match DOS's performance. They don't; in
>fact, they are much faster than DOS. It is therefore obvious that they
>replace DOS.
ssuming this little bit of logic holds water, why didn't they fix all the
other shortcomings?
>>JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of sofware
>>JS> cannot be used to load it.
>>
>>well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
>>require another OS to load itself?
>Take a look at any of the new Alpha and MIPS machines designed for Windows NT.
>They have complete DOS-compatible "operating systems" in ROM, capable of
>running text-mode programs off standard FAT-formatted floppies and CD-ROMs.
>These ROM-based "DOS"es are required to load the respective versions of NT.
>Does this mean that NT is not an OS? Hardly.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. But Windoze in it's vanilla form is
only an operating environment. A full featured OE includes facilities to
perform all the functions provided by the OS. NT has replacements for
the DOS functions built-in. Which is a better idea by far. Of course,
how much of an improvement MS made when replacing the functions is
another question, I mean, after all, these are the people who still
expect people to upgrade to the newest versions of DOS, despite the fact
that they've hardly made any improvement. As far as I'm concerned DOS is
in practice equivalent to a shell. Funny thing is, if it was a shell for
the Amiga or Unix, no-one would use it because it's so crappy compared
even to public-domain products. I know there's more to DOS than this,
but in use, it seems a similar concept, please don't come back with some
list of the other parts of DOS, no-one's interested.
>Heck, the built-in monitor/booter on a Sun Sparcstation is probably more of an
>operating system than MS-DOS. Does that mean that SunOS is not an operating
>system? Guess again.
I think you'll find that we all know this Jerry, thanks so much for
clearing it up though. What exactly do you think the kickstart ROMs in
an Amiga do, or don't you ever think?
>Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and GUIs
>implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece of
>software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then why
>shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those services
>(not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then what
>does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal Kombat
>for the Genesis is an operating system.
Wake up to yourself Jerry, you'll find you're not being very rational at
all. Again, I'll tell you what Windoze is, it's an OPERATING
ENVIRONMENT! If you want to take it that far, yes MK contains low-level
code, enough to perform all the tasks that the other code calls for, so,
since it covers all the functions that the rest of the software for that
OS requires (ie only Mortal Kombat), I would call it a mini-OS. There is
a big difference between this and Windoze running on DOS. Maybe you
don't want to see this? Fine, no great loss, but I'm sure I've actually
seen Windoze called an Operating Environment in official MS documents.
Peter Naylor
>>Hmmm, yes, I know HEAPS of people who take the easy option of replacing
>>Program Manager with PC Tools Shell, NOT!!! If it makes things so much
>>more usable and sensible, shouldn't something like this be a part of the
>>Windoze package?
>Yes, and that's why Chicago (or '95, or whatever they decide to call it next
>week) works like that.
Well, I'm surprised a company as small, and with so little in the way of
resources as Microsoft could come up with something as clever as this so
quickly! Really, I'm sure it'll be very impressive!!! Ha ha ha!
>>An operating system
>>provides low level functions for direct access to all the system's
>>resources, Windoze does not do this, it relies on calling these
>>functions, at least in some cases.
>Wrong. Windows provides direct access (not through DOS) to the keyboard, the
>mouse, the graphics hardware, the audio hardware, and the PC's memory. With
>the 32-bit disk driver and filesystem (which are part of Windows, not DOS),
>Windows provides direct access to hard disk drives as well. What's left?
>Floppies and CD-ROMs. Windows goes through DOS for those. That's all.
I guess that's why I wrote "in some cases". Thanks for all the
enthralling details Jerry.
Oh, is that all? Well, that's good reason to have a complete DOS
installation taking up room on your hard drive isn't it! Get it Jerry?
The whole thing is a farce... they've been stuffing about for a long time
now, at the expense of the users, and still haven't come up with a
sensible solution (unless you want to move to NT, and it's still a pretty
ugly attempt).
>>Well, there you go, exactly HOW does Windoze get access to these files?
>>By using MSDOG function calls that's how.
>Not necessarily (see above).
Thank-you, I realise this, and I think you should see above also. Point
is it's not a complete solution...
>Why do you believe the box that says "Disk Operating System" and not the one
>that says "Windows Operating System"? Try looking at what these packages do,
>not what's on the box. DOS is a small library of disk access routines. Its
>device support is practically nonexistent for anything other than storage
>devices, its process management is completely nonexistent, and its memory
>management might as well be (which is why DOS development systems like
>Borland's have their own memory allocation routines). It never really runs
>at all -- it's just a library that's always resident. At best it is a
>monitor, but no way is it an operating system. On the other hand, everything
>that makes an OS an OS is in Windows.
Duh, that's funny, most books on Windoze describe it as an Operating
Environment, try reading the reply I just read... it actually quotes from
one such book. You are so confused Jerry. DOS is definitely as OS,
countless similar packages have been called an OS and will continue to
be, because that's what they are. Why would I believe the packaging on
the Windoze distribution? Why would I believe their stupid, brain-dead,
computer-illiterate marketing people? Not everyone gets sucked in like
you have Jerry!
>>by the way, thanks for confirming that Windoze (be it in
>>16 or 32 bit mode) RELIES on DOS. The point is, MSDOS defines the
>>filesystem, Windoze uses it, in my book that makes MSDOS the operating
>>system, and Windoze just a funny little application which sits on top of DOS.
>Ridiculous. Windows has its own code that implements the FAT file
>system. Heck, Linux runs the FAT file system, and that doesn't make *it* any
>less than an operating system, does it? Windows has its own memory
>management, process management, resource management, and drivers for almost
>all the devices on a PC. It has its own executable file format which DOS
>cannot read. It has its own API. For accessing a small number of devices
>(floppies and CD-ROMs), it uses the resident library of routines known as DOS,
>just as DOS may in turn use the resident library of routines known as BIOS.
>Windows is *clearly* an OS.
Can't comment on Linux, I use NetBSD, and not on a PC! However if Linux
is anything like what I expect it to be, I think the comparison between
it and Windoze must be some kind of sad humour on your part. I suspect
that Linux doesn't actually USE the DOS routines for disk access, just as
NetBSD doesn't use AmigaDOS for disk access. It uses it's own code to
access a disk which happens to be formatted using a different file
system. I can read, write and format PC floppy and hard disks on my
Amiga, but I can assure you, there is none of the crap from MSDOS
included in my OS. Windoze just can't get by without DOS, that's all
there is to it. For example, where are the facilities of fdisk included
in Windoze? Another thing you're assuming here is that everybody uses
32-bit disk access, which is simply not true, I've given you the benefit
of the doubt until now, because most people do use it, but it's a fact
you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Windoze is *clearly* a confused, hybrid whacky hacked attempt at an
Operating Environment, that's as clear as you would be if someone was
incredibly bored and decided that you were worthy of getting the shit
kicked out of you.
Why is this Operating System/Environment thing so important to you? Are
you trying to justify your poor taste and lack of intestinal willpower in
choosing to support Windoze? Or is it just some weird inferiority
complex? If you like to use Windoze then use it, and go away! Your
whining and bickering over foolish topics such as this has become
predictable, besides you must be getting really low on topics by now?
You've been positively thrashed on every thing you've brought up, do you
have NO self-respect?
Peter Naylor
>>Traditionally, an operating system does three things:
>>
>>* It provides a way of organizing files on some kind of mass storage device.
>>[SNIP]
>>* An operating system provides a set of disk space management tools.
>>[SNIP]
>>* Operating systems must provide a means to allow a user to choose a
>> program, load, and execute that program.
>>
>>Of those three duties, the only one that Windows clearly fulfills is the
>>last. Its graphical interface provides an alternate method for disk
>>management to the old DOS command line interface. Windows employs
>>some capabilities of the 286 and later chips called "protected memory
>>mode." DOS, however, doesn't work in that protected mode. Whenever a
>>Windows program needs to do some file input/outplu, Windows must call
>>upon DOS. To re-activate DOS, Windows must first temporarily abandon this
>>protected mode;
>This is simply incorrect. Windows, when running with FastDisk and VFAT/VCACHE
>activated, easily fulfills all of the requirements above without relying on
>any DOS code. Try again?
Doesn't have to... you've totally missed the point, learn some
comprehension skills Jerry, read the quote from the book again, and then
YOU try again. Shall I explain it to you Jerry? Failed English did you?
Ok...
1. Windoze does not provide the filesystem, it uses it. Yes, there is
some disk access code in Windoze, and a lot of it bypasses DOS, but not
ALL of it. You'll also note that the text said "mass-storage devices",
not "hard disk drives". "mass storage devices" include CD-ROMs, floppy
disks and many other devices.
2. I have yet to find the facilities of fdisk provided in Windoze...
please clear this one up for me, as the text above is describing
functions such as this...
3. Yes, Windoze does this, albeit in an ugly, non-intuitive manner.
Mike Rivers
BBM> >well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how
BBM> many
BBM> >require another OS to load itself?
BBM> It's really sad how few people have read Tracy Kidder's "the sould of a
BBM> new
BBM> machine". The "new machine", the Data General Nova, needs another
BBM> _computer_
BBM> (a DG Eclipse) to do anything, for example loading its microcode, and
BBM> later
BBM> on, yes, the OS...... Now isn't the Nova a computer, or isn't its OS an
BBM> OS?
No.. the Nova is a car. I have one in my driveway. And the Eclipse,
well, thats a car too :-)
(ah shit, here comes another car analogy)
Say my Nova won't start, and I use the Eclipse to jump start the Nova,
Does the make the Nova any less of a car, as once the Nova is running
it is nolonger dependent on the Eclipse.
This is similar to how the afore mentioned computers work.
BBM> >Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
BBM> Do they manage the resources and make them available to other apps?
BBM> BTW, most games for real OSs certainly don't take over the machine.
BBM> They
^^^^
BBM> simply can't!
^^^^^^^^^^^
That's why Real OS games are so few and far between.
BBM> >Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
BBM> Very strange games, that is.... I have heard of databases speaking to
BBM> the
BBM> raw disk device, and of very very old C64 and Apple ][ games, but
BBM> everything
BBM> newer.... Have you ever heard of networks?
BBM> Bernie
You didn't get the point at all.
Just because something provides some features of an operating system,
does not make it an operating system. Granted Windows does supply
OS functions to it's programs, but it is still very much dependent
on DOS.
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>[stuff about "Soul of a New Machine" left off]
>Care to stick a date on that book?
I wouldn't --- there is one in there already :-)
Actually, I think it was early 70s. But why do you think that all terms in
CS changed their meaning within the last 20 years, including things like
"operating system" and "multitasking"?
Maybe we should have another "computer xyz is finally catching up to where
computer abc has been 15 years ago" posting... with xyz being the Amiga, and
abc being the DG Nova?
Bernie
Bernd Bernie Meyer
> JS> GUIs don't have their own executable programs.
> They execute, but under DOS they refuse to work. Some thing with
>X-Windows program that can't be run without X-Windows...
Speaking without a clue?
There is a very big difference: The X program starts up and fails to connect
to the X-Server, which it tells you about. A Windows program consists of a
file that looks like an MS-DOS executable to DOS (most times, the executable
code just prints "won't run without MS-Windows, go away" or some such), and
has some extra info for Windows hidden away where DOS deosn't care about it,
which tells Windows where its executable is to be found. Two executables,
one file.
Setup.exe is a good example, BTW. It has two completely independent, but
fully functional executables in there. Useless, though :-)
Bernie
Mike Rivers
JS> Maybe you don't use the 32-bit drivers? Maybe you haven't done any I/O
JS> speed
JS> measurement?
Your right, I haven't, I imagine they're about as useful as MIPs figures.
esp. with Windows' disk caching.
JS> Windows emulates a DOS environment for DOS applications. So when you're
JS> running Windows' disk driver and file system, Windows is accessing those
JS> devices, not DOS, regardless of the type of application running on top.
And what happens if you boot directly to DOS w/o Windows? Who is controlling
the drives now?
JS> I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but it hardly matters what *you* would
JS> call
And it also does not matter what *you* call it either. MS will continue
you to dish out thier junk, no matter what I call it, what you call it,
or what 99.99% of everybody else calls it.
JS> WinNT. The term "operating system" has existed for a long time, and
JS> your
JS> bizarre notions are not about to change that definition. I'm not sure
JS> where
JS> you got this "self-bootability" requirement, but it's simply not part of
JS> any
JS> published, accepted definition of "operating system".
I'm not sorry to have to remind you, I didn't bring up the 'self bootablity'
issue, if I recall correctly you did. I said an Operating Sytem should not
require another to work. How many 'published definitions' make provisions
for "OS's" that are applications of other OS's.
To quote my MIS course book: "MS-DOS is the most widely used microcomputer
system. It is a single-user, single-tasking operating sytem, but can be
given a graphical-user interface and multitasking capabilities by adding
an operating environtment package like Microsoft Windows."
Is this a good enough 'published definition' of Windows?
Then of course, it hardly matters what this book says...
JS> Jerry
JS> j...@ix.netcom.com
PAUL MALCOLM
: j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
: >>Traditionally, an operating system does three things:
quote from "WINDOWS 3 IN BUSINESS", Stephen Morse, Brady Books
c 1991 ,
'Windows is an operating environment, as opposed to an operating
system or an application. ..... But Windows is less than an operating system
simply because it cannot operate alone and needs DOS to function.'
: >>
: >>* It provides a way of organizing files on some kind of mass storage device.
Jerry Shekhel
>
> JS> Wrong. MS-DOS is incapable of loading or executing Windows-format
> JS> executable files. Windows loads, allocates resources, and executes its
> JS> own programs.
>
> MS-DOS does load such a program. It's the program that refuses to run
>without Windoze.
>
Wrong (more below).
>
> If I follow your way of thinking, I should call the contents of the
>file WIN32S.ZIP a new OS, since it patches Windows, enabling it to run 32-bit
>applications...
>
No, because Windows still does all the OS-stuff underneath.
>
>To put together two answers: maybe so (about the 32-bit disk drivers),
>but still Windoze cannot be run without MS-DOS... Reversely, it's possible
>(ie. MS-DOS can be run without Windows). Which one is an OS?
>
This argument is as stupid as it ever was. MS-DOS can't run without BIOS, but
BIOS can run without MS-DOS. So is BIOS really an OS? Of course not!
>
> JS> GUIs don't have their own executable programs.
>
> They execute, but under DOS they refuse to work. Some thing with
>X-Windows program that can't be run without X-Windows...
>
This is *not* the case with Windows programs running under MS-DOS, and if you
had ever written a Windows program you'd already know that. MS-DOS is
completely incapable of loading and executing a Windows program. However, the
Windows executable format has provisions for embedding a small DOS program
into its header. This program is typically something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
void main (void) {
puts ("This program requires Windows.");
}
When you try to run a Windows program under DOS, this self-contained program
is all that DOS sees and runs; it does *not* load or execute any of the actual
Windows application code, which resides beyond the little stub program in the
executable file. It is easily possible to build a Windows executable without
embedding the stub program. If you try to load *that* under DOS, it'll just
complain that the file is of the wrong format. So it's not like an X Window
program, which executes with or without X, checks for an available display,
and refuses to run if it can't find one. Without Windows, a Windows program
can not run at all.
>
>Yes, of course. But since MS-DOS is the _OS_ of PC computers, and lacks
>such features, Windows HAS TO provide them. It's like three programs put
>together (cooperative multitasker, virtual memory manager, GUI). Still, that
>does not make Windows an OS.
>
Then what would, for Pete's sake? Self-bootability again? No, because that
simply isn't listed as a requirement in any published definition of the term
Jerry Shekhel
>>
>>Yes, and that's why Chicago (or '95, or whatever they decide to call
>>it next week) works like that.
>
>Well, I'm surprised a company as small, and with so little in the way
>of resources as Microsoft could come up with something as clever as
>this so quickly! Really, I'm sure it'll be very impressive!!! Ha ha
>ha!
>
Why are you doing this to yourself, Peter? Do you honestly believe that
anyone at Microsoft (or anywhere else) cares whether or not you'll be
impressed?
>
>Oh, is that all? Well, that's good reason to have a complete DOS
>installation taking up room on your hard drive isn't it!
>
Why have a complete DOS installation? To run Windows, all you need is
about four DOS files. You're *really* reaching now.
>
>Duh, that's funny, most books on Windoze describe it as an Operating
>Environment, try reading the reply I just read... it actually quotes
>from one such book.
>
No need. I'll put my trust in the definitions published in OS
textbooks, not things like "Windows for Dummies" (which sounds, by the
way, like something you should read).
>
>Why would I believe their stupid, brain-dead, computer-illiterate
>marketing people?
>
I don't know. Maybe because they have something you want and will
probably never have -- a job at a good company. I think I'll keep a
list of Naylorisms:
1. Everyone who uses Windows in uncreative.
2. Marketing people are stupid, brain-dead, and
computer-illiterate.
What *will* be next?
>
>Not everyone gets sucked in like you have Jerry!
>
Let's see now. I read about Windows. I read about operating systems.
After reading about both, to me it's obvious that Windows is an
operating system. This is called being "sucked in"? Sorry Pete, but
not everyone, not even all those "stupid, brain-dead,
computer-illiterate marketing people" fit neatly into the stereotypes
you've had to create in order to make yourself feel special.
>
>Windoze is *clearly* a confused, hybrid whacky hacked attempt at an
>Operating Environment, that's as clear as you would be if someone was
>incredibly bored and decided that you were worthy of getting the shit
>kicked out of you.
>
Pete, do you have a point to make, or do you enjoy masturbating your
typing finger for lack of something bigger to play with? You must feel
awfully insecure about your argument if you're already resorting to
personal attacks. Oh well, I knew it.
>
>You've been positively thrashed on every thing you've brought up, do
>you have NO self-respect?
>
I haven't been "positively thrashed" on any point I've made so far in
this discussion. I've been insulted by you and a few others, but I
expected that, especially from you, because it seems to be all you're
capable of, and what you always do when your argument gets vaporized.
I challenge anyone reading this to post a published definition of the
term "operating system" which disqualifies Windows because it relies on
another piece of software for booting and accessing certain devices.
>
>Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>The SunSparc monitor is no more OS than the sys config menu on a DOS
>box. No of them provide functions to utilize hardware resources among
>the processes in the system. They are more of a bootstrapper. All OS
>require more or less strapping to start up. On the Amiga is all this
>strapping put into ROM together with the OS, which makes the line
>between bootstrapper and OS very thin.
>
I agree with all of this. The Sparcstation bootstrapper is not an OS,
but for the same reasons, MS-DOS is not an OS either.
>
>However there's a difference with DOS/MSDOS. MSDOS is alone used as
>an 'OS' and offer limited support for OS like tasks. I think
>MSDOS is too extensive to be regarded to as a bootstrapper, though.
>I haven't seen NT yet (no machine around with enough memory.. :-)
>so I don't say anything about it.
>
You're wrong about how Windows uses MS-DOS. Windows manages the
computer's hardware all by itself, and arbitrates its usage among
multiple processes, something DOS obviously doesn't even know about.
>
>Nope, windows is NOT an OS. The main criterias for an OS is to share
>the hardware resources among the applications and processes in an
>efficient manner with less efforts for the programmer.
>
Precisely, and that's exactly what Windows does!
>
>Dealing with segment pointers and 640 kb memory limits is by no means
>the task of the usual programmer under a real OS.
>
Huh? Where does it say that a "real OS" must provide a non-segmented
memory model? Oh, and the 640KB memory limit is in DOS, not Windows.
>
>An OS do also require to have support for creating, service and
>terminating processes.
>
Yep, and Windows has this support. It creates multiple processes, has
lots of calls for servicing those processes, shares the hardware among
them, and terminates them when they reach the end of their execution
paths.
>
>A game, such as mortal combat, have no support for task scheduling,
>even if it might be self booting, nor do windows...
>
Come on now. Windows *does* schedule tasks. It schedules them non
preemptively, but it does so nonetheless.
>
>/Henrik : hwe...@hermes.hv.se
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>To quote my MIS course book: "MS-DOS is the most widely used microcomputer
>system. It is a single-user, single-tasking operating sytem, but can be
>given a graphical-user interface and multitasking capabilities by adding
>an operating environtment package like Microsoft Windows."
>
>Is this a good enough 'published definition' of Windows?
>Then of course, it hardly matters what this book says...
>
Please folks. For the sake of this discussion, let's forget about MIS course
books and things like "Using Windows in Business". Let's instead go to
"Operating Systems: Design and Implementation":
"The function of the operating system is to present the user with the
equivalent of an extended machine or virtual machine that is easier to
program than the underlying hardware... In the alternative view, the
job of the operating system is to provide for an orderly and
controlled allocation of the processors, memories, and I/O devices
among the various programs competing for them."
Would anyone like to show that Windows does *not* perform these functions?
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Procyon
:In <mriver...@tbag.tscs.com> mri...@tbag.tscs.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
:>JS> of "operating system" which requires that some other piece of sofware
:>JS> cannot be used to load it.
:>
:>well all OS's require some piece of code to start itself, but how many
:>require another OS to load itself?
:>
:
:Take a look at any of the new Alpha and MIPS machines designed for Windows NT.
:They have complete DOS-compatible "operating systems" in ROM, capable of
:running text-mode programs off standard FAT-formatted floppies and CD-ROMs.
:These ROM-based "DOS"es are required to load the respective versions of NT.
:Does this mean that NT is not an OS? Hardly.
:
:Heck, the built-in monitor/booter on a Sun Sparcstation is probably more of an
:operating system than MS-DOS. Does that mean that SunOS is not an operating
:system? Guess again.
The SunSparc monitor is no more OS than the sys config menu on a DOS box.
No of them provide functions to utilize hardware resources among the
processes in the system. They are more of a bootstrapper. All OS require
more or less strapping to start up. On the Amiga is all this strapping
put into ROM together with the OS, which makes the line between
bootstrapper and OS very thin.
However there's a difference with DOS/MSDOS. MSDOS is alone used as
an 'OS' and offer limited support for OS like tasks. I think
MSDOS is too extensive to be regarded to as a bootstrapper, though.
I haven't seen NT yet (no machine around with enough memory.. :-)
so I don't say anything about it.
:>Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
:>Intuition takes control of the graphics subsytem in the
:>Amiga, It certainly isn't an OS.
:>[...]
:>Some games have there own format for executable modules. are they OS's?
:>[...]
:>Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
:>Some may also use some form of multitasking.
:>[...]
:>And some games.
:>Therefore, games are OS's -or- Windows is some sort of cruel game.
:>[...]
:>Windows is an extension of MS-DOS.
:Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and GUIs
:implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece of
:software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then why
:shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those services
:(not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then what
:does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal Kombat
:for the Genesis is an operating system.
Nope, windows is NOT an OS. The main criterias for an OS is to share the
hardware resources among the applications and processes in an efficient
manner with less efforts for the programmer. Dealing with segment pointers
and 640 kb memory limits is by no means the task of the usual programmer
under a real OS. An OS do also require to have support for creating,
service and terminating processes.
A game, such as mortal combat, have no support for task scheduling,
even if it might be self booting, nor do windows...
/Henrik : hwe...@hermes.hv.se
x/|\x
((`- -')) "Hacking on sandman's door..."
__.oOo.__(_)__.oOo.__
Rask Lambertsen
> .. Avi Jerry! ..
> In your letter to Rafal Wiosna dated Mon Mar 20 1995 in C.S.A.ADVOCACY you
> wrote:
> >> If it is an OS, why it needs MS-DOS to work then? (notice "OS" in
> >> MS-DOS).
> JS> If MS-DOS is an OS, why does it need BIOS to work?
Notice "DOS" in MS-DOS. DOS means Disk Operative System and has nothing
to do with an OS (= Operating System).
> BIOS does not even manage files and filesystem. It's just a library of
> low-level hardware routines. A bad library, often bypassed by programmers.
> >> I prefer name 'WinDOS' -- Windows for DOS. It really tells what so
> >> called Windows are.
That's a good name.
--
Regards,
___________________________________________________________________________
/ \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc94...@gbar.dtu.dk> or <e986...@ebar.dtu.dk> |
| |
| Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue |
\___________________________________________________________________________/
Dr. Peter Kittel
>Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (ro...@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
>
>: It's really sad how few people have read Tracy Kidder's "the sould of a new
>: machine".
>
>Just an aside-- this is an EXCELLENT book and should be required reading
>for c.s.a.a.
Oh nice, so I'm qualified :-). Yes, it's an excellent book, and also
available in German: "Die Seele einer neuen Maschine".
>If anyone ever writes a book about Commodore and the Amiga (and they
>bloody well ought to--there are a lot of great stories in there)
I have already thought about it. But I feel from my view that everything
I remember is rather dull and uninteresting, just personal nostalgia...
>should read this book to find out how to do it properly.
Uh oh, *not* easy. He primarily was a journalist and no technician
(as we here), and he won the Pulitzer price.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel //
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ Email to: pet...@combo.ganesha.com
Now ex-employee of Commodore, Class of '95.
Kevin M. Borowsky
>
>Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and GUIs
>implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece of
>software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then why
>shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those services
>(not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then what
>does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal Kombat
>for the Genesis is an operating system.
>
Sorry. Windows is not an operating system. Even the original Windows 3.1
boxes said OPERATING ENVIRONMENT. Windows is just like GEOWORKS, a shell
that sits on top of dos.
Windows will not work without msdos.sys,io.sys etc. installed on the
computer. Self-bootabilty does consitiute an operating system.
When does loads, it loads off a boot-strap program on the FAT table.
msdos.sys, io.sys for example.
When you boot LINUX from DOS using LOADLIN, you are in effect requesting
the system to load the bootstrap program LILO which is located at the
beginning of the LINUX root partition. The LINUX kernal that is loaded
takes care of all the disk operations.
Windows on the other hand is a .com file, and DOS does most of the work
for Windows.
Mortal Kombat or any other program is not an OS simply because it is only
a program that runs. It does not do any I/O etc, the Genesis ROM's do
that.
--
>:::;' /) - * - - + - (\ `::::
>::' / ) ':` uk...@sunyit.edu ':` (\_ `
>:' _( (_ _ Team OS/2 _ ) )\ />
>: (((\ \) /,) 'The world is full of kings and queens / ) / //))/
Jerry Shekhel
>
>Sorry. Windows is not an operating system. Even the original Windows 3.1
>boxes said OPERATING ENVIRONMENT. Windows is just like GEOWORKS, a shell
>that sits on top of dos.
>
Not really. GeoWorks uses the same 640K memory as DOS, while Windows uses
memory (and other devices) that DOS doesn't even know about.
>
>Windows will not work without msdos.sys,io.sys etc. installed on the
>computer. Self-bootabilty does consitiute an operating system.
>
It does? Please tell me where you read that.
>
>When you boot LINUX from DOS using LOADLIN, you are in effect requesting
>the system to load the bootstrap program LILO which is located at the
>beginning of the LINUX root partition. The LINUX kernal that is loaded
>takes care of all the disk operations.
>
>Windows on the other hand is a .com file, and DOS does most of the work
>for Windows.
>
Windows is not a .COM file. *WIN.COM* is a .COM file, and all that it contains
are the Windows loader (a-la LOADLIN) and the Windows logo image -- that's it.
The heart of Windows is a file called WIN386.EXE, which contains a preemptive
multitasking virtual machine kernel. That's right -- Windows schedules
virtual machines preemptively; it has to, since the programs running inside
those virtual machines don't know how to cooperate. And saying that DOS does
most of the work for Windows is completely false.
>
>Mortal Kombat or any other program is not an OS simply because it is only
>a program that runs.
>
What the heck does *this* mean? Are you saying that an operating system isn't
a program? Are you saying that operating systems don't run? What are you
saying?
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>>
>>Please folks. For the sake of this discussion, let's forget about MIS
course
>>books and things like "Using Windows in Business". Let's instead go to
>>"Operating Systems: Design and Implementation":
>>
>> "The function of the operating system is to present the user with the
>> equivalent of an extended machine or virtual machine that is easier to
>> program than the underlying hardware... In the alternative view, the
>> job of the operating system is to provide for an orderly and
>> controlled allocation of the processors, memories, and I/O devices
>> among the various programs competing for them."
>
>>Would anyone like to show that Windows does *not* perform these functions?
>>
>>Jerry
>>j...@ix.netcom.com
>
>Fine Jerry, lets do that. Lets quote from the above: orderly and controlled
>allocation of the I/O devices. Is it Windows doing this or your friendly
>local pc technician seeting up the proper com ports and dip switches. Oh
>wait, I see the command.com and autoexec.bat files are part of Windows not
>DOS...
>
What do COM ports and DIP switches have to do with memory? What do
COMMAND.COM and AUTOEXEC.BAT have to do with the operating system? Are you
trying to make a point or just blowing smoke out your ass as usual?
>
>An orderly allocation of memory - HAHAHAHAHA!
>
>Get real...
>
Perhaps you could tell us, Thorne, why the Windows memory allocation system
(accessed through all the *Alloc calls) isn't real.
>Thorne K. Kontos
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Kris Kontos
>Please folks. For the sake of this discussion, let's forget about MIS course
>books and things like "Using Windows in Business". Let's instead go to
>"Operating Systems: Design and Implementation":
>
> "The function of the operating system is to present the user with the
> equivalent of an extended machine or virtual machine that is easier to
> program than the underlying hardware... In the alternative view, the
> job of the operating system is to provide for an orderly and
> controlled allocation of the processors, memories, and I/O devices
> among the various programs competing for them."
>Would anyone like to show that Windows does *not* perform these functions?
>
>Jerry
>j...@ix.netcom.com
Fine Jerry, lets do that. Lets quote from the above: orderly and controlled
allocation of the I/O devices. Is it Windows doing this or your friendly
local pc technician seeting up the proper com ports and dip switches. Oh wait,
I see the command.com and autoexec.bat files are part of Windows not DOS...
An orderly allocation of memory - HAHAHAHAHA!
Get real...
Thorne K. Kontos
SUN Microsystems
David Corn
> NOT TO MENTION my Telemate for Dos (communications program) multitasks
> better then Windoze. Hell, it can be printing a file and I can be reading a
> directory and the file won't pause in printing.
?? I print from Word to my HP4ML and there is no pause - I hit print, and
it prints. I've instantly got program control in Word, and the spool to
the printer happens instantly.
> Now, let me just get MS Word 6.0 to *attempt* to print a 30 page
> document. Ok, okay, so I DON'T do this *pseudo* multi(cough, gag,
> gasp)tasking that Windoze CLAIMS, and MS Word STILL freaks after page,
> oh..say, THREE?? (But OS/2 solved that problem. ;) )
On a 80286/10 or so?
Terry Palfrey
Meyer) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <D629I...@wombat.hanse.de>
> References: <67522-7...@mindlink.bc.ca>
> Posted: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 18:47:10 GMT
>
> Org. : Private uucp site lost in the voids of the black hole Germany is
> in the Internet
>
> Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Terry Palfrey) writes:
>
> >[stuff about "Soul of a New Machine" left off]
>
> >Care to stick a date on that book?
>
> I wouldn't --- there is one in there already :-)
>
> Actually, I think it was early 70s. But why do you think that all terms
> in
> CS changed their meaning within the last 20 years, including things like
> "operating system" and "multitasking"?
>
> :get as much processing power as the big iron right on your desktop now
> :at a pittance compared to their price tags
>
> Maybe we should have another "computer xyz is finally catching up to
> where
> computer abc has been 15 years ago" posting... with xyz being the Amiga,
> and
> abc being the DG Nova?
>
> come
> :to appreciate what the AMIGA has actually accomplished
>
> Bernie
:Terry
Jerry Shekhel
>>
>>What do COM ports and DIP switches have to do with memory? What do
>>COMMAND.COM and AUTOEXEC.BAT have to do with the operating system? Are you
>>trying to make a point or just blowing smoke out your ass as usual?
>>
>Not blowing smoke at all. Why is it you are so totally defensive? I was
>referring to the I/O devices. Reread what I was referring to.
>
I apologize for flying off the handle, but you must admit that your bashing
came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with what we had been discussing.
You should do a bit of rereading yourself.
>
>Let me ask you something. If i remove those two files from my system
>(COMMAND.COM and AUTOEXEC.BAT) which are DOS files, will Windows run?
>
No. So?
>
>Not without the underlying support of the real operating system - DOS.
>
DOS won't run without the underlying support of the BIOS; does this mean the
BIOS is the real operating system?
>
>So I ask you again, how is the orderly control of the I/O devices
>being accomplished? It certainly is not through software, because then
>PC's would finally get "Plug-and-play".
>
Orderly control and allocation of the I/O devices has little to do with
initial hardware configuration. The lack of PnP on current PCs is a hardware
limitation that even what you call "real OSs" like UNIX can't do anything
about. It is indeed unfortunate. What I was talking about is the way Windows
controls all the hardware in a PC and shares it among multiple programs.
This is what makes it much more than just a GUI. Sure, it may call DOS to
help out with low-level access to a select few devices such as floppies and
some CD-ROMs, but it's still Windows which shares even these devices among its
multiple virtual machines and processes (which DOS obviously doesn't even know
about).
>
>Very typical response, when words fail, let the slanderous remarks
>start to fly. What is it about you that you feel the need to take up
>the banner of Microsoft and defend them to the hilt.
>
Drop it; I'm defending nobody. I don't have to be a defender of Hyundai to
call the Excel an automobile.
>
>Have you finally
>got around to totalling up all the money you've shucked out for new systems
>and software upgrades? My hats off to Microsoft, they've taken you for a
>grand and glorious ride (at your expense, no less). I can hardly wait until
>Intel starts waving the P6 at all of us. Will you be here proclaiming
>that as well as yet another breakthrough for PC's?
>
Huh? What have I ever "proclaimed as breakthroughs"? Please tell me what the
*HELL* you're talking about.
As far as my "grand and glorious ride", the lack of expansion options for the
Amiga is hardly an advantage. I would have had to purchase *several*
different Amigas, and spend much more money, in order to have a remotely
equivalent machine at each stage of my "grand and glorious ride". Next you'll
be telling me that the death of Commodore translates into a tremendous price
advantage for Amiga 4000 owners, because they will never again need to upgrade
to stay current with the latest Amiga. Then you'll probably resume telling me
about how *Microsoft* has slowed down industry progress.
>
>Not saying it isn't real, in fact they've made great strides in doing
>everything possible to increase the way memory is allocated. They have had
>to, or doesn't the phrase "who'll ever need more than 640K!" ring a bell.
>
Could you please list some of the things they've done to "increase the way
memory is allocated"? No offense, but you're blowing smoke again. Sheesh,
your own baby, Solaris, requires what, 32MB before it can run any
applications?
>
>Thorne Kontos
>SUN Microsystems
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jeremy Reimer
: Oh nice, so I'm qualified :-). Yes, it's an excellent book, and also
: available in German: "Die Seele einer neuen Maschine".
: >If anyone ever writes a book about Commodore and the Amiga (and they
: >bloody well ought to--there are a lot of great stories in there)
: I have already thought about it. But I feel from my view that everything
: I remember is rather dull and uninteresting, just personal nostalgia...
Well, *somebody* should write the whole story, so that it doesn't get
lost in people's memories. If someone would write a book about the Amiga
story that was even half as well written as _Soul of a New Machine_ I'd
buy it in two seconds.
: >should read this book to find out how to do it properly.
: Uh oh, *not* easy. He primarily was a journalist and no technician
: (as we here), and he won the Pulitzer price.
Well, technicians do not always make the best writers or chroniclers of
their story. It takes someone trained in writing who is a bit more
removed from the actual events to really bring the story to life and make
it worth reading. Another recommended book about the personal computer
revolution is _Accidental Empires_ by Robert X. Cringely. It doesn't
give the whole story but there are some interesting things in there about
Apple and Microsoft in their early days.
A third book that deals with the very old days of computing is _Hackers_
by Stephen Levy. It covers a span from the first minicomputers to the
Apple II. There are some very strange stories about Sierra and some of
the weird things that went on there in the days when the Apple II was king.
However, none of these books have any mention of the Amiga, or if they do
mention it, only a passing reference. _Someone_ should do an Amiga book,
if only for the sake of completeness. Why should history remember the
Data General Nova and not the Ami?
Jeremy
Kris Kontos
>No. So?
This is probably my best point when agreeing with the original poster who claimed
that Windows is not an OS in the truest sense of the word. If it were an OS, why
does it need to rely on a second OS that runs underneath it. I would expect not
to have to have the support of one OS (DOS) to get Windows (an OS?) to run. When do
you expect Microsoft will put out a stand-alone Windows? (95?, 96?) When Microsoft
can finally leave the baggage of DOS behind, then I'll grant you that Windows
is a true OS. In the meantime, you are paying for TWO software packages, which
should have been smoothly integrated into one by this time given the technology
in place. Leaving Windows as nothing more than a glorified GUI for DOS...and
you have to pay to get it as a second package. This by far is the best Microsoft
marketing scheme ever and most people who own PC's never give it a second thought.
Just do me a favor Jerry, and total up the money you've spent on hardware and
software, and then honestly tell me that in some small way you don't feel like you've
been suckered. I can in all honesty, point out large numbers of PC users who
would love to get off the Microsoft bandwagon if there was a suitable substitute
at the same price point. I do see a move towards a larger sale of Unix boxes, maybe
some of the yuppie crowd want machines that can really hum.
>about. It is indeed unfortunate. What I was talking about is the way Windows
>controls all the hardware in a PC and shares it among multiple programs.
>This is what makes it much more than just a GUI. Sure, it may call DOS to
>help out with low-level access to a select few devices such as floppies and
>some CD-ROMs, but it's still Windows which shares even these devices among its
>multiple virtual machines and processes (which DOS obviously doesn't even know
>about).
>
Jerry, I hate to keep slamming Windows and DOS at every turn. But the statement
you make here about the way Windows controls all the hardware in a PC just
strikes me as hilarious. How much programming does it take on a single-tasking
system to share the resources of the hardware. Where is the multitasking?
I could go on an on about Microsoft and their products, mainly their inflated
cost and lack of originality. I view Microsoft as a sledgehammer that is being
used to crack an egg. It gets the job done, but I'll always have scrambled eggs.
Now I realize that if we are talking WinNT we are in a different realm. I'll
go so far as to agree that they finally made a stand-alone OS. Not that it
is the greatest piece of coding, however. I do have some knowledge of this as
I talked to some of the first people to port WinNT to another platform. And
that was at Intergraph. You are more than welcome to verify this. So even WinNT
has its faults, but if I were forced to choose between WinNT and Windows, than
my choice would be the former. Thankfully I do not have to.
-----------------------Cut and snip from your response section-------------------
BTW, it does not take 32 Meg to run Solaris, after all, working for the company
one does get some insight into the different board configurations available for
sale. It does seem on this point, you are really far off the mark and therefore
are sentenced to going back and doing your research. :) I could use this argument
for your PC as well running Windows, sure it can do it in 4Meg, but it doesn't
work well, does it? Can you name me a system that doesn't benefit from more
memory?
-----------------------Cut and snip from your response section-------------------
Kris Kontos
Matt Pursley
that's because it is not an operating system itself!
M@
Kris Kontos
>>> equivalent of an extended machine or virtual machine that is easier to
>>> program than the underlying hardware... In the alternative view, the
>>> job of the operating system is to provide for an orderly and
>>> controlled allocation of the processors, memories, and I/O devices
>>> among the various programs competing for them."
>>
>>allocation of the I/O devices. Is it Windows doing this or your friendly
>>local pc technician seeting up the proper com ports and dip switches. Oh
>>wait, I see the command.com and autoexec.bat files are part of Windows not
>>DOS...
>>
>What do COM ports and DIP switches have to do with memory? What do
>COMMAND.COM and AUTOEXEC.BAT have to do with the operating system? Are you
>trying to make a point or just blowing smoke out your ass as usual?
>
referring to the I/O devices. Reread what I was referring to.
being accomplished? It certainly is not through software, because then
PC's would finally get "Plug-and-play".
Very typical response, when words fail, let the slanderous remarks
start to fly. What is it about you that you feel the need to take up
the banner of Microsoft and defend them to the hilt. Have you finally
got around to totalling up all the money you've shucked out for new systems
and software upgrades? My hats off to Microsoft, they've taken you for a
grand and glorious ride (at your expense, no less). I can hardly wait until
Intel starts waving the P6 at all of us. Will you be here proclaiming
that as well as yet another breakthrough for PC's?
>Perhaps you could tell us, Thorne, why the Windows memory allocation system
>(accessed through all the *Alloc calls) isn't real.
Not saying it isn't real, in fact they've made great strides in doing
everything possible to increase the way memory is allocated. They have had
to, or doesn't the phrase "who'll ever need more than 640K!" ring a bell.
I for one will never claim that the PC has not come a long way, my
complaint is it has taken them so long to do so. Especially given what the
Amiga had in 1985. It might be a worthwhile exercise to actually timeline
out a few of the major technological "breakthroughs" for the three consumer
platforms just to see who had what when. Another useful exercise would be to price
out software packages considered necessary and useful as well as the numerous
upgrade costs. After all, I hear this complaint quite a bit from the PC
and Amiga advocates that neither side can seperate fact from fiction.
Thorne Kontos
SUN Microsystems
Noel Ashford
>In <3l40la$9...@eken.hv.se> hwe...@hv.se (Procyon) writes:
>You're wrong about how Windows uses MS-DOS. Windows manages the
>computer's hardware all by itself, and arbitrates its usage among
>multiple processes, something DOS obviously doesn't even know about.
This should read *SOME* of the computer's hardware. Windows doesn't
know shit about a cdrom without mscdex, windows also can't seem to
fully understand my syquest without dos drivers and why can't windows
use IDE (not EIDE) drives larger than 540 megs, as this is a combined
DOS/BIOS problem.
>>
>>Nope, windows is NOT an OS. The main criterias for an OS is to share
>>the hardware resources among the applications and processes in an
>>efficient manner with less efforts for the programmer.
>>
>Precisely, and that's exactly what Windows does!
>>
>>Dealing with segment pointers and 640 kb memory limits is by no means
>>the task of the usual programmer under a real OS.
>>
>Huh? Where does it say that a "real OS" must provide a non-segmented
>memory model? Oh, and the 640KB memory limit is in DOS, not Windows.
Quite so, but windows has it's own limits, eg's resources, number of
icons, number of possible tasks etc.
>>
>>An OS do also require to have support for creating, service and
>>terminating processes.
>>
>Yep, and Windows has this support. It creates multiple processes, has
>lots of calls for servicing those processes, shares the hardware among
>them, and terminates them when they reach the end of their execution
>paths.
Although if a process goes haywire, windows refuses to clean up
properly after a GPF.
Also windows doesn't share all hardware between apps. Eg if one app
accesses the harddrive that's it, it is the only one to have access
until it finishes reading.
>Jerry
Noel Ashford
Windows 96: It'll be out real soon -MS
MAC Multitasking: We have teams working concurrently on it -APPLE
Gilles Bourdin
>> If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today)
>> and I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I
>> have no copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today).
>> How much of my stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
BBM> If you have a copy of DOS, and have a PC which has the BIOS chips
BBM> removed, how much of your DOS stuff will run?
BBM> Does this mean that DOS isn't an operating system?
Yes, because DOs, as its name tells, is only a Disc Operating System. It has been expanded since then though. You can for instance buy a nice color program manager to put on top of it.
--
Gilles Bourdin / France
g...@ramses.fdn.org
g...@worldnet.sct.fr IRC:GillesB
Fax (331)46266261
Jerry Shekhel
>
>If it were an OS, why
>does it need to rely on a second OS that runs underneath it. I would expect
>not to have to have the support of one OS (DOS) to get Windows (an OS?) to
>run.
>
Why? Where does it say that a program cannot be an OS if it uses some part of
another program? If you look at everything Windows does, from managing (most
of) the I/O devices to managing memory to managing virtual machines and
processes, you'll see that it can't be called anything except an OS.
>
>Just do me a favor Jerry, and total up the money you've spent on hardware and
>software, and then honestly tell me that in some small way you don't feel
>like you've been suckered. I can in all honesty, point out large numbers of
>PC users who would love to get off the Microsoft bandwagon if there was a
>suitable substitute at the same price point. I do see a move towards a larger
>sale of Unix boxes, maybe some of the yuppie crowd want machines that can
>really hum.
>
Why do you keep acting as if I'm on some kind of rampage to defend MS? I
thought we were just trying to discuss whether or not Windows is an OS. And
about the money thing, like I said, if I upgraded to a similar Amiga every
time I upgraded my PC, I would have spent much more money -- either that, or a
comparable upgrade would not have been available. So no, I don't feel like
I've been "suckered" one bit.
>
>Jerry, I hate to keep slamming Windows and DOS at every turn. But the
>statement you make here about the way Windows controls all the hardware in a
>PC just strikes me as hilarious. How much programming does it take on a
>single-tasking system to share the resources of the hardware. Where is the
>multitasking?
>
I can't believe you're even talking about Windows when you know so little
about it. Windows maintains multiple virtual machines, each of which is
scheduled *preemptively* with the others. All but one of these virtual
machines run DOS applications -- again, preemptively. The other virtual
machine runs multiple Windows processes and schedules them cooperatively. The
current implementation is far FAR *FAR* from perfect, but it is *definitely*
multitasking.
>
>Now I realize that if we are talking WinNT we are in a different realm. I'll
>go so far as to agree that they finally made a stand-alone OS. Not that it
>is the greatest piece of coding, however. I do have some knowledge of this as
>I talked to some of the first people to port WinNT to another platform. And
>that was at Intergraph. You are more than welcome to verify this. So even
>WinNT has its faults, but if I were forced to choose between WinNT and
>Windows, than my choice would be the former. Thankfully I do not have to.
>
Could you list some of these NT faults? I'm not trying to be difficult here,
just genuinely curious. From my perspective, which is of course "only" a
limited user's perspective, it does seem to be a fairly impressive piece of
code, much more so than Solaris anyway (and I honestly don't mean that as any
kind of cheap shot).
>
>Kris Kontos
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Procyon
:e431...@student.uq.edu.au (Peter Naylor) writes:
:I don't know. Maybe because they have something you want and will
:list of Naylorisms:
:
: 1. Everyone who uses Windows in uncreative.
: 2. Marketing people are stupid, brain-dead, and
: computer-illiterate.
I thought every engineer/programmer agreed upon the well known
fact that marketing people are stupid (etc). Wanting our
unfinished products we work on to be released yesterday.
:What *will* be next?
Lawyers? Business people? Yeah, they are all leeches...
:I challenge anyone reading this to post a published definition of the
:term "operating system" which disqualifies Windows because it relies on
:another piece of software for booting and accessing certain devices.
Ok, again... My coursebook says the task of an operating system is
to let multiple processes to share at optimal level the hardware
resources. I can't find one argument for why non-preemtive multitasking
and 640kb memory barrier should enable Windows to be regarded as an OS.
All kinds of busy waiting MUST be eliminated to take optimal use of
CPU resources. Today only preemtive multitasking do this at a reasonable
level. Perhaps Win95 can be regarded as an OS, but I wait until a see
a final release version until I say anything about it.
But one thing for sure, the money's in Windows, so if people want it,
then I take my chance to earn some easy money. Still, a lot of windows
programming can be done in other real environments (read: Unix)...
Marcel Eckhoff
> But here's the kicker: why does Windows need MS-DOS to run? If it's an
> OS it shouldn't need MS-DOS.
Windows'95 - if it will ever become reality - won't need
MS-DOS any longer, so it will become a "real" OS.. ;-))
But I think, this is a topic for a windows-newsgroup,
is'nt it? :)
____________________________________________________________
_ //yours sincerely, / eck...@cosmos-l.gun.de /
\X/MARCEL ECKHOFF / pgp public key available on request /
---------------------------------------------------------+
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>Fine Jerry, lets do that. Lets quote from the above: orderly and controlled
>allocation of the I/O devices. Is it Windows doing this or your friendly
>local pc technician seeting up the proper com ports and dip switches.
allocation to the programs. That is, installed and working hardware is
supposed to be there, and the OS just manages who uses it at what time.
Which is exactly what Windows does.
>An orderly allocation of memory - HAHAHAHAHA!
"Orderly" in this sentence doesn't refer to "good" or even "efficient", but
just "keeping in order", which means avoiding hiccups like having the same
memory used by two apps. Or crashing because it ran out of memory. Windows
fulfills these criteria, though with some very strange design decisions.
Managing the resources is what defines an OS. Managing the resources in a
clean, well thought out and efficient way is what defines a _good_ Os ;-)
>Oh wait,
>I see the command.com and autoexec.bat files are part of Windows not DOS...
Oh well, there is a saying in Anglican countries: "If it walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck, then for all practical purposes, it _is_ a duck".
So who really cares whether Windows is an OS or not? Certainly not the user,
which leaves the programmer. And the programmer has everything managed by
Windows (which, in turn, might use DOS as an overblown device driver). So
for everybody who cares Windows is an OS for all practical purposes (aka:
it's the only API you speak to).
>Get real...
Bernie
Bernd Bernie Meyer
>Not blowing smoke at all. Why is it you are so totally defensive? I was
>referring to the I/O devices. Reread what I was referring to.
And you were talking about DIP switches, which I haven't seen manipulated by
software yet. So what you were saying implied that there is no OS on this
planet yet, which somehow is a little, well, debatable, right?
>Let me ask you something. If i remove those two files from my system
>(COMMAND.COM and AUTOEXEC.BAT) which are DOS files, will Windows run?
No problem. AUTOEXEC.BAT is not needed at all, and COMMAND.COM can be
replaced by heaps of (differently named) alternative shells (like 4DOS.COM).
Now if you remove IO.SYS, you might run into trouble....
Bernie
Jerry Shekhel
>
>:I challenge anyone reading this to post a published definition of the
>:term "operating system" which disqualifies Windows because it relies on
>:another piece of software for booting and accessing certain devices.
>
>Ok, again... My coursebook says the task of an operating system is
>to let multiple processes to share at optimal level the hardware
>resources. I can't find one argument for why non-preemtive multitasking
>and 640kb memory barrier should enable Windows to be regarded as an OS.
>
First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
barrier. Second, what you say about cooperative multitasking is strictly
opinion. AmigaOS's tendency to crash because of one bad process -- or at best
to "hold" it in memory with no way of releasing its resources -- can't be
considered optimal either.
>
>/Henrik : hwe...@hermes.hv.se
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
rafal wiosna
About this 32-bit disk access thing... What do you think happens when
user deletes a file using Program Manager? 32-bit driver does it or is it DOS?
And what does filesharing? 32-bit driver? And what updates FAT? 32-bit driver
is just a DRIVER, it does not MANAGE filesystem.
It is all done by MS-DOS. Windows cannot do that.
JS> This argument is as stupid as it ever was. MS-DOS can't run without BIOS,
JS> but BIOS can run without MS-DOS. So is BIOS really an OS? Of course not!
Yeah. You're missing the point completly.
The whole discussion is getting dumber. It's like comparing a car to a
house. Car has a door, and house has it. Car has a window, so does house. So a
house and a car is the same thing.
I work in a publishing house, where 95% of the staff work in PC
business. I've talked to NT/Windows2000/Microsoft enthustiast. In fact, he's
Windows 2000 beta-tester. But I tried to convince him, that Windows 3.1 _IS_ an
operating system using your argumentation. He laughed at me and provided a set
of arguments that Windows is _NOT_ an os. Now I'm trying to get him on the net
so he can repeat what he said to me...
JS> This is *not* the case with Windows programs running under MS-DOS, and if
JS> you had ever written a Windows program you'd already know that. MS-DOS is
JS> completely incapable of loading and executing a Windows program. However,
MS-DOS is capable of LOADING the program.
JS> Then what would, for Pete's sake? Self-bootability again? No,
JS> because
JS> that simply isn't listed as a requirement in any published definition of
JS> the term "operating system".
You need a bootstrap to load an os. Why then Windows does not provide
it? It'd be easier. Simply, because Windows cannot work without MS-DOS.
- Rafal Wiosna /// -
( UUCP Dialup connection )
Dr. Peter Kittel
Sorry, off-topic.
> Yes, because DOs, as its name tells, is only a Disc Operating System. It has been expanded since then though. You can for instance buy a nice color program manager to put on top of it.
Hi Gilles:
1. I cant't reach you by email, my answer to your mail bounced.
2. Please limit your line lengths to ca. 70 chars.
3. I'm not motivated to jump into these (not) OS quarrels, I just sit
amused...
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel //
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ Email to: pet...@combo.ganesha.com
Now ex-employee of Commodore, Class of '95.
Stay cool, not cold (Cool bleiben, nicht kalt); H. J. Friedrichs
Chris Brown
Jerry Shekhel <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>e431...@student.uq.edu.au (Peter Naylor) writes:
>
>>>
>>>Yes, and that's why Chicago (or '95, or whatever they decide to call
>>>it next week) works like that.
>>
>>Well, I'm surprised a company as small, and with so little in the way
>>of resources as Microsoft could come up with something as clever as
>>this so quickly! Really, I'm sure it'll be very impressive!!! Ha ha
>>ha!
>>
>
>Why are you doing this to yourself, Peter? Do you honestly believe that
>anyone at Microsoft (or anywhere else) cares whether or not you'll be
>impressed?
Good grief, you're sad.
>>Oh, is that all? Well, that's good reason to have a complete DOS
>>installation taking up room on your hard drive isn't it!
>>
>
>Why have a complete DOS installation? To run Windows, all you need is
>about four DOS files. You're *really* reaching now.
Is he? Ever heard of monolithic operating systems? Example...
$ ls -l /vmunix
-rwxr-xr-x 26 root 3196068 Jan 20 17:31 /vmunix
That's *ONE* system file I see there on this UNIX workstation, about 3
megabytes. Now granted, DOS is an insect compared to UNIX, but his point
is very valid.
>>Duh, that's funny, most books on Windoze describe it as an Operating
>>Environment, try reading the reply I just read... it actually quotes
>>from one such book.
>>
>
>No need. I'll put my trust in the definitions published in OS
>textbooks, not things like "Windows for Dummies" (which sounds, by the
>way, like something you should read).
I remember from the OS principles course I took last year (Part 1B of
the Cambridge University Computer Science Tripos), the lecturer was
talking about what constituted an OS. I don't remember everything he
said, but one phrase stuck in my mind, which I think is a rather good
quote:
"...not like Windows which is this great mess stuck on top of MS-DOS"
>>Why would I believe their stupid, brain-dead, computer-illiterate
>>marketing people?
>>
>
>I don't know. Maybe because they have something you want and will
>probably never have -- a job at a good company.
Micorsoft? Good company? If it wasn't you posting this, Jerry, I'd say
it was a very good (and hillariously funny) troll.
>>Windoze is *clearly* a confused, hybrid whacky hacked attempt at an
>>Operating Environment, that's as clear as you would be if someone was
>>incredibly bored and decided that you were worthy of getting the shit
>>kicked out of you.
>>
>
>Pete, do you have a point to make, or do you enjoy masturbating your
>typing finger for lack of something bigger to play with? You must feel
>awfully insecure about your argument if you're already resorting to
>personal attacks. Oh well, I knew it.
Pot calls kettle...
FYI, Winodws is a (particually poor) graphical shell for MS-DOS that sits
partially on top of, and partially alongside it, providing a (badly
implemented and poorly thought out) graphical user interface and (laughable)
task switching capibiities.
Is X an OS, Jerry?
--
// Chris Brown. finger cpb...@cus.cam.ac.uk for my PGP public key.
\\ // Undergraduate at Cambridge University, United Kingdom
\X/ <a href=http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/cpb1001/>Click here WWW users.</a>
Chris Brown
Jerry Shekhel <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
>barrier.
Quite right, the memory barrier in Windows is actually 64K (although this
no longer applies in Windows NT, and Windows (crash 'n trash) 95).
640K? Giving it a little more credit than it deserves, methinks.
Tim Barham
> >> If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today)
> >> and I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I
> >> have no copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today).
> >> How much of my stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
Why don't we hold over the whole "Is Windows an operating system argument"
(which is really somewhat irrelevent to anything) till (when, if) Windows 95
(96, 97 or whatever) comes out, so then (hopefully) we can all agree that
Windows is an operating system (and self sufficient in and of itself)? Then we
can forget this irrelevent rubbish and get on to some serious arguing?
Tim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barham
tba...@vcrpmap.telecom.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Ashford
>In <3lk5hq$1...@eken.hv.se> hwe...@hermes.hv.se (Procyon) writes:
>>
>>:I challenge anyone reading this to post a published definition of the
>>:term "operating system" which disqualifies Windows because it relies on
>>:another piece of software for booting and accessing certain devices.
>>
>>Ok, again... My coursebook says the task of an operating system is
>>to let multiple processes to share at optimal level the hardware
>>resources. I can't find one argument for why non-preemtive multitasking
>>and 640kb memory barrier should enable Windows to be regarded as an OS.
>>
>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
>barrier. Second, what you say about cooperative multitasking is strictly
>opinion. AmigaOS's tendency to crash because of one bad process -- or at best
>to "hold" it in memory with no way of releasing its resources -- can't be
>considered optimal either.
In an earlier post on this subject I mentioned that Windows suffers
exactly the same fate. If one application dies usually due to low
memory windows DOES NOT release the memory the program used. Word
2.0 was a great one for this. Now as for freeing resources every Amigan
should use ARTM.
>>
>>/Henrik : hwe...@hermes.hv.se
>>
>Jerry
>j...@ix.netcom.com
Gerard McDermott
>
>Somebody wrote:
>
>> >> If I have a copy of Windows (one I can go down to the shop and buy today)
>> >> and I have a PC and I have lots of Windows applications/games/etc. but I
>> >> have no copy of DOS (any DOS I can go down to the shop and buy today).
>> >> How much of my stuff will run ? Can I start a program manager ?
>
>Why don't we hold over the whole "Is Windows an operating system argument"
>(which is really somewhat irrelevent to anything) till (when, if) Windows 95
>(96, 97 or whatever) comes out, so then (hopefully) we can all agree that
>Windows is an operating system (and self sufficient in and of itself)? Then we
>can forget this irrelevent rubbish and get on to some serious arguing?
Well, I was that "somebody". I was commenting on what can be bought today.
Anybody can make promises and tell you what wonderful stuff you can have later
but no matter what it will be you still must concern yourself with today.
Anything you cannot get today may never arrive at all. And when it does, the
chances that it does not actually do as promised will be high. You should
also remember that a current argument is not invalid just because somebody
said the future will be different.
Gerard. //
(\X/ Amiga by choice)
===============================================================================
Gerard McDermott e-mail: g...@tusc.com.AU
TUSC Computer Systems (disclaimers apply)
666 Doncaster Road phone: +61 3 8402222
Doncaster Australia 3108 fax: +61 3 8402277
===============================================================================
Jerry Shekhel
>
>About this 32-bit disk access thing... What do you think happens when
>user deletes a file using Program Manager? 32-bit driver does it or is it
>DOS? And what does filesharing? 32-bit driver? And what updates FAT? 32-bit
>driver is just a DRIVER, it does not MANAGE filesystem.
>
> It is all done by MS-DOS. Windows cannot do that.
>
Why don't you *try* informing yourself before posting these utter lies?
32-bit *Disk* Access is indeed nothing more than a driver for accessing the
disk sectors without going through DOS. 32-bit *File* Access, on the other
hand, is a complete 32-bit FAT file system implementation. When using both
drivers, Windows does in fact do all file operations by itself; DOS is not
involved at all.
> JS>
> JS> This argument is as stupid as it ever was. MS-DOS can't run
> JS> without BIOS, but BIOS can run without MS-DOS. So is BIOS really an OS?
> JS> Of course not!
>
> Yeah. You're missing the point completly.
> The whole discussion is getting dumber. It's like comparing a car to
>a house. Car has a door, and house has it. Car has a window, so does house.
>So a house and a car is the same thing.
>
My point stands. If relying on other software for certain tasks
"disqualifies" a program from being called an OS, then Windows, DOS, AmigaOS,
and even UNIX are all disqualified.
>
>I work in a publishing house, where 95% of the staff work in PC
>business. I've talked to NT/Windows2000/Microsoft enthustiast. In fact, he's
>Windows 2000 beta-tester. But I tried to convince him, that Windows 3.1 _IS_
>an operating system using your argumentation. He laughed at me and provided a
>set of arguments that Windows is _NOT_ an os. Now I'm trying to get him on
>the net so he can repeat what he said to me...
>
Great, but until you get him on the net, just admit that you don't know what
you're talking about.
> JS>
> JS> This is *not* the case with Windows programs running under MS-DOS, and
> JS> if you had ever written a Windows program you'd already know that.
> JS> MS-DOS is completely incapable of loading and executing a Windows > JS>
program. However,
>
> MS-DOS is capable of LOADING the program.
>
No, it is not. MS-DOS is tricked into loading a small stub program embedded
into the Windows app's executable file. To convince yourself, put a large
Windows executable, 800K or bigger, onto a floppy, and load it from DOS,
timing how long it takes to display the error message. Hell, DOS isn't even
capable of reading in a file that large. And please don't tell me about
overlays, because you'd only be making a bigger fool of yourself.
>
> You need a bootstrap to load an os. Why then Windows does not provide
>it? It'd be easier. Simply, because Windows cannot work without MS-DOS.
>
More likely because until Windows 95, Bill Gates wanted at least two Microsoft
products on each PC instead of one.
>
>- Rafal Wiosna /// -
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>>
>>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
>>barrier. Second, what you say about cooperative multitasking is strictly
>>opinion. AmigaOS's tendency to crash because of one bad process -- or at
>>best to "hold" it in memory with no way of releasing its resources -- can't
>>be considered optimal either.
>
>In an earlier post on this subject I mentioned that Windows suffers
>exactly the same fate. If one application dies usually due to low
>memory windows DOES NOT release the memory the program used.
>
This is mostly false. Although Windows, like AmigaOS, has no memory
protection, a bad application can hose the whole system, that's true. Also,
an app's so-called resources (in Windows lingo) cannot always be released.
However, its code and data segments are released.
>
>Noel Ashford
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>>
>>Why have a complete DOS installation? To run Windows, all you need is
>>about four DOS files. You're *really* reaching now.
>
>Is he? Ever heard of monolithic operating systems? Example...
>
>$ ls -l /vmunix
>-rwxr-xr-x 26 root 3196068 Jan 20 17:31 /vmunix
>
>That's *ONE* system file I see there on this UNIX workstation, about 3
>megabytes. Now granted, DOS is an insect compared to UNIX, but his
>point is very valid.
>
What?! His "point" is absolute bullshit! Are you sure you read it? He
claimed that an entire DOS installation is required to run Windows. An
entire DOS installation spans several megabytes. What's required for
Windows adds up to about 100K.
>
>I remember from the OS principles course I took last year (Part 1B of
>the Cambridge University Computer Science Tripos), the lecturer was
>talking about what constituted an OS. I don't remember everything he
>said, but one phrase stuck in my mind, which I think is a rather good
>quote:
>
>"...not like Windows which is this great mess stuck on top of MS-DOS"
>
Great quote. Perhaps you should put it into your signature. In the
meantime, do you recall your professor actually explaining *why* Windows
is not an OS? If so, why not post it?
>>
>>I don't know. Maybe because they have something you want and will
>>probably never have -- a job at a good company.
>
>Micorsoft? Good company? If it wasn't you posting this, Jerry, I'd say
>it was a very good (and hillariously funny) troll.
>
Let's see now. It's the envy of the entire industry, and a company
which has made millionaires out of roughly one seventh of its 15,000
employees. It dominates both operating systems and application
software. While myriads of little UNIX consortia are bickering over
whose "standard" will become the "real standard", Microsoft creates
de-facto standards by going out there and getting people to buy their
software. It has created an enormous market that simply wasn't there
before, in which thousands of smaller software and hardware companies
can thrive (as long as they don't compete directly with MS), the
resulting competition obviously *increasing* the rate of progress in the
industry. It has done exactly what every other company would *like* to
do. Its products are far from perfect just like everyone else's, but
the difference is that they *realize* that; they know that they have
absolutely no lock on future sales, and that's why they stay aggressive
year after year, while other companies become slow, lazy, and
litigation-happy after some amount of initial success. Oh yeah, what an
awful company.
By the way, if you think I'm one of the few people who feels this way,
take a look at the recent issue of _Upside_ magazine, where you'll find
plenty of industry observers and company executives (many even from the
same companies which compete directly with MS) all making similar
statements. And please don't start preaching about how Microsoft simply
uses clever marketing to push bad products onto the public. This is an
old argument that was stupid the very first time it was proposed.
Examples to the contrary abound -- MS-Money was just one. No amount of
MS marketing savvy or even *giveaways* from Computer Associates could
get people to stop buying the superior product, Quicken. And as stupid
as that argument against Microsoft was initially, over the years it has
become completely pathetic as hundreds of net.wise.guys repeated it over
and over like some kind of sacred chant. The irony is that these are
the same people who like to accuse *others* of being "mindless
followers"! Amazing.
>
>Is X an OS, Jerry?
>
Of course not. X is a network-transparent window system. The X server
program does not schedule processes or manage the host computer's memory
or devices, but operating systems (yes, including Windows) do.
>
> // Chris Brown.
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Tim Barham
>
>>:I challenge anyone reading this to post a published definition of the
>>:term "operating system" which disqualifies Windows because it relies on
>>:another piece of software for booting and accessing certain devices.
>>
>>Ok, again... My coursebook says the task of an operating system is
>>to let multiple processes to share at optimal level the hardware
>>resources. I can't find one argument for why non-preemtive multitasking
>>and 640kb memory barrier should enable Windows to be regarded as an OS.
So are you saying that any operating system that doesn't allow multiple
processes is not, in fact, an operating system?
Has anyone on this list EVER claimed that "non-preemtive multitasking and
640kb memory barrier (sic)" are the reasons why Windows should be regarded as
an operating system?
>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
>barrier.
Although, of course, fill up your 640K of DOS memory with device drivers and
such before running Windows and see how well Windows runs.
And no, I'm not on one hand supporting Windows and on the other hand knocking
it - I accept that Windows is an operating system, but I also accept that in
many respects it's not a GOOD operating system. But then, the same could be
said for AmigaOS - such as Jerry's comment of one task being able to bring
down the whole system so easily.
Peter Naylor
>>>Ok, again... My coursebook says the task of an operating system is
>>>to let multiple processes to share at optimal level the hardware
>>>resources. I can't find one argument for why non-preemtive multitasking
>>>and 640kb memory barrier should enable Windows to be regarded as an OS.
>So are you saying that any operating system that doesn't allow multiple
>processes is not, in fact, an operating system?
Hmmm, that would be a silly claim to make... MSDOS is an operating
system, and it's pathetic. However, Windoze is NOT an operating system,
it is an operating environment. Why Jerry seems so determined to prove
otherwise is beyond me... what does it matter what it's called? If you
don't mind making a LOT of compromises, then use it! The only reason I
see for Jerry's repetitive posts is an inferiority complex of some sort.
I mean here is a guy (little boy) who makes statements to the effect of
"you'll never have a good job" when he knows absolutely NOTHING about
me. For your information Jerry, I have a good, well-payed job already
arranged for when I graduate, perhaps we should keep in touch, and in
five or ten years time we can compare careers? I'm sorry, but this
argument has already been covered, we tell you that Windows is not an
operating system, but an operating environment, and we back it up with
text book information. Then you come back and say that Windows is an
operating system because it includes all the functions of an OS, except
for a few things. Don't you get it? It's precisely those exceptions
which make Windoze an OE, and not an OS. Please come up with some more
arguments Jerry, all the others have been shot down in flames, and you're
repeating yourself.
Oh, and another thing Jerry, if you want to keep making stupid comments
about my career, based purely on brainless speculation, then you can just
get fucked, you truly have proven yourself to be a complete dickhead.
>Has anyone on this list EVER claimed that "non-preemtive multitasking and
>640kb memory barrier (sic)" are the reasons why Windows should be regarded as
>an operating system?
Not that I know of... but there have been some pretty knowledgeless
claims made from both sides of the argument. I believe that the post
you've reacted to was made by someone who knows little about computing...
and consequently miscomprehended the text. That's fine, they're just
standing up for something that they know is right by heart. It's people
like Jerry that annoy me, they claim to know something about the
technical side of things, then when all his arguments are countered by
perfectly reasonable points, he ignores them, and reposts the same
points, in a different context...
>>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
>>barrier.
>Although, of course, fill up your 640K of DOS memory with device drivers and
>such before running Windows and see how well Windows runs.
I have never seen Windows run reasonably, and I've seen a lot of
different systems running it... it feels cheap and nasty, no matter what
sort of hardware you're using. IMHO!!! I realise that other people have
different needs, and may be happy to use Windoze, that's their
perogative, but it's not for me...
>And no, I'm not on one hand supporting Windows and on the other hand knocking
>it - I accept that Windows is an operating system, but I also accept that in
>many respects it's not a GOOD operating system. But then, the same could be
>said for AmigaOS - such as Jerry's comment of one task being able to bring
>down the whole system so easily.
Oh no, you've got it all wrong now, and you were doing so well! Windoze
is NOT an OS. Yes, I agree AmigaOS3.1 still could do with some
improvements... but it's still great as it is. I don't have any problems
with tasks causing crashes. If you know how to use the computer, and you
avaoid using dodgy hacks, and old software, there is no reason why you
should ever experience a crash. As I recall from prior discussion with
Jerry, the last Amiga he used was someone else's Amiga 500, running
workbench 1.3. And even then he only used it for a short time. What a
nerve, to tell me that my system is unstable, when he obviously has sweet
fuck all in the way of experience...
{---------------------------------------------------------------------------}
{- ______ ______ _ _ Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student -}
{ | | | |\ | The University of Queensland, Australia }
{ |____| | | \ | e431...@student.uq.edu.au (Preferred) }
{ | | | \ | [OR: ro...@130.102.9.70 (When online!)] }
{- | \___| | \| Amiga3000/25 10M RAM, 930M HD, Ados3.1, NetBSD -}
{___________________________________________________________________________}
Mike Williams
JS> MESS: 39 of 101 AREA: Advocacy (3)
JS> SUBJ: Re: Windows is not an OS! REF#: 750
JS> FROM: JERRY SHEKHEL -TO-: ALL
JS> DATE: 03-22-95 TIME: 05:51
JS> ---------------------------------------------------------------
JS> >
JS> >Most games take over the computer's hardware, are they OS's?
JS> >Intuition takes control of the graphics subsytem in the
JS> >Amiga, It certainly isn't an OS.
JS> >[...]
JS> >Some games have there own format for executable modules. are they OS's?
JS> >[...]
JS> >Some games use their own special filesystems. are they OS's?
JS> >Some may also use some form of multitasking.
JS> >[...]
JS> >And some games.
JS> >Therefore, games are OS's -or- Windows is some sort of cruel game.
JS> >[...]
JS> >Windows is an extension of MS-DOS.
JS> >
[stuff deleted]
JS> Wrong. Windows is an operating system. The fact that some games and GUIs
JS> implement a few OS-like functions doesn't prove your point. If a piece of
JS> software is designed solely to perform operating system services, then why
JS> shouldn't we call it an operating system? If performing all those
services
JS> (not just one or two) doesn't qualify it as an operating system, then what
JS> does? Self-bootability? Give me a break! That would mean that Mortal
JS> Kombat
JS> for the Genesis is an operating system.
Well, it sort of is. Operating systems, especially in these days
of multitasking, are supposed to control access to the hardware,
and especially to prevent conflicts between two processes that want
to access the same machine resource. On a Genesis or something,
mediating disputes is unnecessary because there is only one process
to consider, but since there is some code in there somewhere to
specify how the hardware is accessed, there is something that would
count as an operating system.
On an MS-Dos / Windows system you do have all the requirements for
an operating system. Without MS-Dos you don't. The main one is
access to the hardware, with the most obvious example being
external storage (disk drives, tape drives, etc.). Windows does
not provide this by itself! Any disk access must be handled by
MS-Dos, therefore MS-Dos is the operating system, not Windows. If
they ever get around to releasing Windows ninety-whatever, and if
it replaces MS-Dos completely as they say it will, THEN and only
then will I consider Windows an operating system.
*** I am Yoda of Borg: Futile, resistance is. Assimilate you, I will.
** MS QWiK v4.2 [UNREG] for Amiga **
Mike Williams
JS> MESS: 42 of 101 AREA: Advocacy (3)
JS> SUBJ: Re: Windows is not an OS! REF#: 750
JS> FROM: JERRY SHEKHEL -TO-: ALL
JS> ---------------------------------------------------------------
JS> kon...@theophilus.Eng.Sun.COM (Kris Kontos) writes:
JS> >
JS> >If it were an OS, why
JS> >does it need to rely on a second OS that runs underneath it. I would
JS> expect
JS> >not to have to have the support of one OS (DOS) to get Windows (an OS?)
to
JS> >run.
JS> >
JS> Why? Where does it say that a program cannot be an OS if it uses some
part
JS> of
JS> another program? If you look at everything Windows does, from managing
JS> (most
JS> of) the I/O devices to managing memory to managing virtual machines and
JS> processes, you'll see that it can't be called anything except an OS.
How about managing disk access? That is still handled by MS-Dos.
That's why Windows is not an operating system itself: It can't
actually access the drives.
[ stuff deleted ]
JS> >
JS> >Jerry, I hate to keep slamming Windows and DOS at every turn. But the
JS> >statement you make here about the way Windows controls all the hardware
in
JS> a
JS> >PC just strikes me as hilarious. How much programming does it take on a
JS> >single-tasking system to share the resources of the hardware. Where is
the
JS> >multitasking?
JS> >
JS> I can't believe you're even talking about Windows when you know so little
JS> about it. Windows maintains multiple virtual machines, each of which is
JS> scheduled *preemptively* with the others. All but one of these virtual
JS> machines run DOS applications -- again, preemptively. The other virtual
JS> machine runs multiple Windows processes and schedules them cooperatively.
JS> The
JS> current implementation is far FAR *FAR* from perfect, but it is
JS> *definitely*
JS> multitasking.
You're talking about Windoze NT here, right? If not, you're full
of sh*t. Windows is in no way a preemptive multitasking setup. It
is cooperative, and not all that good at cooperative. I will
concede that it maintains virtual machines, at least to MS-Dos
applications if not to Windows ones. Does it actually multitask
between applications if the current one is a Dos Shell or anything
else non-Windows? I was under the impression that it does not.
JS> >
JS> >Now I realize that if we are talking WinNT we are in a different realm.
JS> I'll
JS> >go so far as to agree that they finally made a stand-alone OS. Not that
it
JS> >is the greatest piece of coding, however. I do have some knowledge of
this
JS> as
JS> >I talked to some of the first people to port WinNT to another platform.
JS> And
JS> >that was at Intergraph. You are more than welcome to verify this. So even
JS> >WinNT has its faults, but if I were forced to choose between WinNT and
JS> >Windows, than my choice would be the former. Thankfully I do not have to.
JS> >
JS> Could you list some of these NT faults? I'm not trying to be difficult
JS> here,
JS> just genuinely curious. From my perspective, which is of course "only" a
JS> limited user's perspective, it does seem to be a fairly impressive piece
of
JS> code, much more so than Solaris anyway (and I honestly don't mean that as
JS> any
JS> kind of cheap shot).
Well I'll add mine, although I admit all my Windoze NT experience
is second hand. It's inefficient. What are the hardware
requirements of that monster? 100 Megs of HD, 16-24 Megs RAM, and
at least a 60 Mhz processor? I don't care how good it is (or
isn't), there is NO excuse for taking resources like that when OS2
or a Unix/X-Windows setup can do everything NT does on more like
70, 8 and 25. In all but drive space that's HALF what NT requires.
*** I am Pentium of Borg: Division is irrelevant. You will be approximated.
Peter Naylor
>rafal....@p28.reptile.ct.se (rafal wiosna) writes:
>> JS> This argument is as stupid as it ever was. MS-DOS can't run
>> JS> without BIOS, but BIOS can run without MS-DOS. So is BIOS really an OS?
>> JS> Of course not!
>>
>> Yeah. You're missing the point completly.
>> The whole discussion is getting dumber. It's like comparing a car to
>>a house. Car has a door, and house has it. Car has a window, so does house.
>>So a house and a car is the same thing.
>My point stands. If relying on other software for certain tasks
>"disqualifies" a program from being called an OS, then Windows, DOS, AmigaOS,
>and even UNIX are all disqualified.
Which tasks? The situation is most similar to Workbench on the Amiga...
the Workbench is a process on the AmigaOS, and it uses AmigaOS to get access
to devices. Windoze uses some DOS routines for some chores... not all,
but some. No-one claims that the Workbench is an OS, why should Windoze
be considered an OS when it too makes use of the underlying OS? Both
Windoze and Workbench are operating environments... get that through your
thick skull Jerry.
>>I work in a publishing house, where 95% of the staff work in PC
>>business. I've talked to NT/Windows2000/Microsoft enthustiast. In fact, he's
>>Windows 2000 beta-tester. But I tried to convince him, that Windows 3.1 _IS_
>>an operating system using your argumentation. He laughed at me and provided a
>>set of arguments that Windows is _NOT_ an os. Now I'm trying to get him on
>>the net so he can repeat what he said to me...
>Great, but until you get him on the net, just admit that you don't know what
>you're talking about.
So the opinions of people without internet access are valueless? Some
battles (minor points) have been lost Jerry, but you've certainly lost
the war. Why don't you admit being wrong? Windoze is not an OS. How
many times have I said that now? It's time to give this thread up as a
loss Jerry, move on, try and think of a new way to justify your poor taste.
>> JS> This is *not* the case with Windows programs running under MS-DOS, and
>> JS> if you had ever written a Windows program you'd already know that.
>> JS> MS-DOS is completely incapable of loading and executing a Windows
>> JS> program. However,
>>
>> MS-DOS is capable of LOADING the program.
>No, it is not. MS-DOS is tricked into loading a small stub program embedded
>into the Windows app's executable file. To convince yourself, put a large
>Windows executable, 800K or bigger, onto a floppy, and load it from DOS,
>timing how long it takes to display the error message. Hell, DOS isn't even
>capable of reading in a file that large. And please don't tell me about
>overlays, because you'd only be making a bigger fool of yourself.
*SIGH* Another testament to your poor comprehension skills. MSDOS is
perfectly capable of LOADing a Windoze binary, just as I can LOAD a
Windoze binary with AmigaOS. You cannot execute that binary though.
There is nothing to stop you from using a binary editor in DOS to load
and edit a windoze binary... providing there are no memory restrictions.
Don't be so quick to call people a fool, especially when you're as
brainless as yourself... it's bound to backfire as this did.
>> You need a bootstrap to load an os. Why then Windows does not provide
>>it? It'd be easier. Simply, because Windows cannot work without MS-DOS.
>More likely because until Windows 95, Bill Gates wanted at least two Microsoft
>products on each PC instead of one.
We all realise this is just speculation on your part Jerry, but it seems
to be pretty mindless speculation... if Microsoft could have done it
sooner they would have... and have you forgotten about NT?
Douglas Pokorny
>How about managing disk access? That is still handled by MS-Dos.
>That's why Windows is not an operating system itself: It can't
>actually access the drives.
Not that I want to jump to Jerry's defense, however, what part of
32-bit disk access and 32-bit file access don't you understand?
With these features enabled, Windows does not use DOS for hard disk
access.
>You're talking about Windoze NT here, right? If not, you're full
>of sh*t. Windows is in no way a preemptive multitasking setup. It
>is cooperative, and not all that good at cooperative. I will
>concede that it maintains virtual machines, at least to MS-Dos
>applications if not to Windows ones. Does it actually multitask
>between applications if the current one is a Dos Shell or anything
>else non-Windows? I was under the impression that it does not.
Once again, Microsoft Windows *PREEMPTIVELY MULTITASKS* multiple
VDM's. Windows, however, runs all windows software in one single
VDM. As a result, DOS programs are preemptively multitasked while
Windows programs are cooperatively multitasked.
Please don't start in with your "Jerry doesn't know what he's talking
about". When it comes to Windows, he's got the architecture correct.
Windows, however, _is a huge hack_. I don't use it, and I don't
recommend that _anyone_ use it.
-Douglas
------------------------+------------------------------------
Douglas R. Pokorny | Happily running:
d...@camelot.bradley.edu | OS/2 3.0 & Workplace Shell
| MS-Windows NT 3.5
This message posted with| Linux 1.1 & OpenLook X-Windows
OS/2 3.0's SLIP software| PC-DOS 6.3 & MS-Windows 3.11
------------------------+------------------------------------
Brian McCloskey
<stuff about Windows having the 640K limit deleted>
>You are 100% wrong. The 640K memory limit comes from the fact that an Intel
>CPU running in Real Mode cannot address more than 1MB (1024K), of which 384K
>is reserved for memory-mapped hardware devices. Windows and its applications
M$-DOS is a real-mode operating system, therefore any program running under
it assumes its limitations. EMM386 switches M$-DOS into protected mode
to allow *access* to more than 1MB. It does *not* however, provide your
system with true protected-mode capabilities.
>do not run in Real Mode; they run in Protected Mode, which has no such
>addressing limitation. The original 8086 and 8088 processors do not have
>Protected Mode capability, and this is why Windows requires at least a 286.
>Windows for Workgroups, in fact, requires a 386, as many parts of its
>internals are 32-bit code.
Hmm, now there sounds like a stable combination. 32 bit code, running on
a 16 bit cooperative multitasking program, all running on a non-reentrant
single-tasking, single user, single threaded, 8-bit operating system.
>A regular 16-bit Windows application consists of a number of segments, and
>although each segment is still limited to 64K in length, the whole application
>may add up to much more than 640K, and most of the big-name business programs
>do just that. And no, Windows does not employ any kind of overlay mechanism;
>it simply loads and runs programs wherever memory is available -- below the
>640K line or above, just like UNIX or any other Protected Mode OS.
You just called Windoze an operating system. This here lies the absolute
ignorance in your argument. Windoze is *not*, I repeat, *not* an operating
system. It is a GUI *program* that allows like-programs to run in the
same cooperative multitasking environment. Yes, Windoze is a protected
mode *program*, however it is a protected mode *program* that runs on an 8 bit
real-mode, non-reentrant, single threaded, single tasking, operating system.
Windoze has all the limitations of M$-DOS because it runs on top of M$-DOS.
Windoze is not limited to the 640K area by no means, but it must still live
with that *very real* limitation of M$-DOS. If it didn't then explain to
me why the more convential memory you have the faster Windoze runs? In the
very plant I work in we use (against my better judgment) Windoze to run
some of our stations. We work very hard to load all the device drivers and
network drivers into high memory so that we have enough room to run Windoze
in a large enough environment so it doesn't crash on an hourly basis.
Windoze uses these *real mode* device drivers. So long as your *program*
does that, you are living in real mode, even if you think you are not, or
rather, cleverly being spoon fed such nonsense by the Micro-Sloth Empire.
Brian McCloskey
Microsoft, Yesterday's Technology Tomorrow
Tom Hood
[chop]
: Hmmm, that would be a silly claim to make... MSDOS is an operating
: it is an operating environment. Why Jerry seems so determined to prove
: otherwise is beyond me... what does it matter what it's called? If you
: don't mind making a LOT of compromises, then use it! The only reason I
: see for Jerry's repetitive posts is an inferiority complex of some sort.
: I mean here is a guy (little boy) who makes statements to the effect of
: "you'll never have a good job" when he knows absolutely NOTHING about
: me. For your information Jerry, I have a good, well-payed job already
i hope it is not writing manuals.
: arranged for when I graduate, perhaps we should keep in touch, and in
: five or ten years time we can compare careers? I'm sorry, but this
: argument has already been covered, we tell you that Windows is not an
: operating system, but an operating environment, and we back it up with
: text book information. Then you come back and say that Windows is an
: operating system because it includes all the functions of an OS, except
: for a few things. Don't you get it? It's precisely those exceptions
: which make Windoze an OE, and not an OS. Please come up with some more
: arguments Jerry, all the others have been shot down in flames, and you're
: repeating yourself.
: Oh, and another thing Jerry, if you want to keep making stupid comments
: about my career, based purely on brainless speculation, then you can just
: get fucked, you truly have proven yourself to be a complete dickhead.
i hope it is not writing manuals.
: >Has anyone on this list EVER claimed that "non-preemtive multitasking and
: >640kb memory barrier (sic)" are the reasons why Windows should be regarded as
: >an operating system?
: Not that I know of... but there have been some pretty knowledgeless
: claims made from both sides of the argument. I believe that the post
: you've reacted to was made by someone who knows little about computing...
: and consequently miscomprehended the text. That's fine, they're just
: standing up for something that they know is right by heart. It's people
: like Jerry that annoy me, they claim to know something about the
^^^^^^^^^
i hope it is not writing manuals.
: technical side of things, then when all his arguments are countered by
: perfectly reasonable points, he ignores them, and reposts the same
: points, in a different context...
i hope it is not writing manuals.
: >>First of all, although Windows has its limitations, it has no 640K memory
: >>barrier.
: >Although, of course, fill up your 640K of DOS memory with device drivers and
: >such before running Windows and see how well Windows runs.
: I have never seen Windows run reasonably, and I've seen a lot of
: different systems running it... it feels cheap and nasty, no matter what
: sort of hardware you're using. IMHO!!! I realise that other people have
^^^^^^^
i hope it is not writing manuals.
: different needs, and may be happy to use Windoze, that's their
: perogative, but it's not for me...
: >And no, I'm not on one hand supporting Windows and on the other hand knocking
: >it - I accept that Windows is an operating system, but I also accept that in
: >many respects it's not a GOOD operating system. But then, the same could be
: >said for AmigaOS - such as Jerry's comment of one task being able to bring
: >down the whole system so easily.
: Oh no, you've got it all wrong now, and you were doing so well! Windoze
: is NOT an OS. Yes, I agree AmigaOS3.1 still could do with some
: improvements... but it's still great as it is. I don't have any problems
: with tasks causing crashes. If you know how to use the computer, and you
: avaoid using dodgy hacks, and old software, there is no reason why you
: should ever experience a crash. As I recall from prior discussion with
: Jerry, the last Amiga he used was someone else's Amiga 500, running
: workbench 1.3. And even then he only used it for a short time. What a
: nerve, to tell me that my system is unstable, when he obviously has sweet
: fuck all in the way of experience...
: {---------------------------------------------------------------------------}
: {- ______ ______ _ _ Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student -}
: { | | | |\ | The University of Queensland, Australia }
: { |____| | | \ | e431...@student.uq.edu.au (Preferred) }
: { | | | \ | [OR: ro...@130.102.9.70 (When online!)] }
: {- | \___| | \| Amiga3000/25 10M RAM, 930M HD, Ados3.1, NetBSD -}
: {___________________________________________________________________________}
th
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Shekhel
>
>Which tasks? The situation is most similar to Workbench on the Amiga...
>the Workbench is a process on the AmigaOS, and it uses AmigaOS to get access
>to devices. Windoze uses some DOS routines for some chores... not all,
>but some. No-one claims that the Workbench is an OS, why should Windoze
>be considered an OS when it too makes use of the underlying OS? Both
>Windoze and Workbench are operating environments... get that through your
>thick skull Jerry.
>
Workbench does not manage processes or the computer's hardware.
Windows does. Workbench is indeed a process being managed by and running on
top of an underlying OS. Windows is not. DOS doesn't even have a kernel --
it's just a small memory-resident subroutine library, just like the BIOS.
Using the BIOS doesn't seem to disqualify DOS in your view, so why should
using DOS disqualify Windows?
>
>>Great, but until you get him on the net, just admit that you don't know what
>>you're talking about.
>
>So the opinions of people without internet access are valueless?
>
Of course not, but opinions need to be backed up by facts in order to serve as
proof of anything.
>
>Some battles (minor points) have been lost Jerry, but you've certainly lost
>the war. Why don't you admit being wrong? Windoze is not an OS. How
>many times have I said that now? It's time to give this thread up as a
>loss Jerry, move on, try and think of a new way to justify your poor taste.
>
There you go again, drawing conclusions about my taste without a single clue
as to what my taste actually is. At no time during this discussion did I say
that I actually *like* Windows, just that I think it is an OS. Like I said
before, I don't have to like a Yugo to call it an automobile.
>
>*SIGH* Another testament to your poor comprehension skills. MSDOS is
>perfectly capable of LOADing a Windoze binary, just as I can LOAD a
>Windoze binary with AmigaOS. You cannot execute that binary though.
>There is nothing to stop you from using a binary editor in DOS to load
>and edit a windoze binary... providing there are no memory restrictions.
>
Duh -- the memory restrictions are precisely the point. Go ahead, write a
16-bit real-mode DOS program that loads WinWord's entire 3.7MB executable into
memory. I dare you to try.
>
>Don't be so quick to call people a fool, especially when you're as
>brainless as yourself... it's bound to backfire as this did.
>
Backfire?! Please. Try not to pat yourself on the back so much until you
disprove at least one of my statements.
>>
>>More likely because until Windows 95, Bill Gates wanted at least two
>>Microsoft products on each PC instead of one.
>
>We all realise this is just speculation on your part Jerry, but it seems
>to be pretty mindless speculation... if Microsoft could have done it
>sooner they would have... and have you forgotten about NT?
>
Nah, NT suits Bill just fine. It costs twice as much as DOS and Windows
combined.
>
>{- ______ ______ _ _ Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student -}
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>The only reason I
>see for Jerry's repetitive posts is an inferiority complex of some sort.
>I mean here is a guy (little boy) who makes statements to the effect of
>"you'll never have a good job" when he knows absolutely NOTHING about
>me. For your information Jerry, I have a good, well-payed job already
>arranged for when I graduate, perhaps we should keep in touch, and in
>five or ten years time we can compare careers? I'm sorry, but this
>argument has already been covered, we tell you that Windows is not an
>operating system, but an operating environment, and we back it up with
>text book information.
>
Once again, Peter sees what he wishes to see, not what's actually there.
Nobody -- not you or anyone here -- has posted a single text book definition
of "operating system" which disqualifies Windows. Oh sure, people have
posted plenty of rants, raves, and opinions, but nothing of any substance. So
you can keep telling yourself that you've proven something if it makes you
feel warm and fuzzy; after all, you already live in a fantasy world where
everyone who uses Windows is uncreative and all marketing people are brainless
and illiterate.
>
>Then you come back and say that Windows is an
>operating system because it includes all the functions of an OS, except
>for a few things. Don't you get it? It's precisely those exceptions
>which make Windoze an OE, and not an OS. Please come up with some more
>arguments Jerry, all the others have been shot down in flames, and you're
>repeating yourself.
>
You're right about the flames -- plenty have been posted -- but flames really
don't prove anything.
>
>Oh, and another thing Jerry, if you want to keep making stupid comments
>about my career, based purely on brainless speculation, then you can just
>get fucked, you truly have proven yourself to be a complete dickhead.
>
Oh, nice rebuttal! Who's being the "little boy" now, Pete?
>
>It's people
>like Jerry that annoy me, they claim to know something about the
>technical side of things, then when all his arguments are countered by
>perfectly reasonable points, he ignores them, and reposts the same
>points, in a different context...
>
Peter, I've seen you post plenty of flames and four-letter words, but where
are your "perfectly reasonable points"? It's not hard to ignore things that
don't exist. In any case, my challenge stands -- show me *one* textbook
definition of "operating system" which excludes Windows -- not an opinion, but
a definition of the term. I'm ready to provide at least three which clearly
qualify Windows as an OS.
>
>Peter James Naylor, BE Mech Student
>
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Jerry Shekhel
>
>On an MS-Dos / Windows system you do have all the requirements for
>an operating system. Without MS-Dos you don't. The main one is
>access to the hardware, with the most obvious example being
>external storage (disk drives, tape drives, etc.). Windows does
>not provide this by itself! Any disk access must be handled by
>MS-Dos, therefore MS-Dos is the operating system, not Windows.
>
First of all, you're wrong. Windows, when running with 32-bit Disk and
File Access, handles all disk operations (to hard disks, anyway) by
itself. Second, even if you were right about disk access (and you're
not), why look only at disks? Other hardware, like graphics,
communications, network cards, keyboards, printers, mice, memory, tape
drives, etc., are handled directly by Windows. What is it about disks
that makes them the final decision factor? Don't diskless workstations
have operating systems?
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Rivers
JS> > JS> This argument is as stupid as it ever was. MS-DOS can't run
JS> > JS> without BIOS, but BIOS can run without MS-DOS. So is BIOS really
JS> an OS?
JS> > JS> Of course not!
JS> My point stands. If relying on other software for certain tasks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought this started out with _relying on another OS_.
JS> "disqualifies" a program from being called an OS, then Windows, DOS,
JS> AmigaOS,
JS> and even UNIX are all disqualified.
Not certain about UNIX. but AmigaDos does not require any other
software than itself.
If _relying on other software for certain tasks_ were the
criteria for excluding an 'OE' from being an 'OS', then
AmigaDos running on only a stock Amiga would be a 'true'
OS. It is the only OS that doesn't require any 'other
software' (ie. non-OS supplied drivers) to operate the
hardware, and almost all other current OSes could not
be considered OSes because they often require 3rd party
drivers etc..
* Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
Jerry Shekhel
>
>How about managing disk access? That is still handled by MS-Dos.
>That's why Windows is not an operating system itself: It can't
>actually access the drives.
>
As I mentioned in my previous article, you're wrong. Read any
description of Windows' 32-bit Disk Access and File Access drivers.
>
>JS> current implementation is far FAR *FAR* from perfect, but it is
>JS> *definitely* multitasking.
>
>You're talking about Windoze NT here, right? If not, you're full
>of sh*t. Windows is in no way a preemptive multitasking setup. It
>is cooperative, and not all that good at cooperative. I will
>concede that it maintains virtual machines, at least to MS-Dos
>applications if not to Windows ones. Does it actually multitask
>between applications if the current one is a Dos Shell or anything
>else non-Windows? I was under the impression that it does not.
>
For f*ck's sake, why don't you try using the product you're discussing
before you call someone "full of sh*t". Windows (3.x, not NT) schedules
virtual machines *preemptively*. Yes, it actually multitasks between
applications if the current one is a DOS shell or any other DOS app.
>
>Well I'll add mine, although I admit all my Windoze NT experience
>is second hand. It's inefficient. What are the hardware
>requirements of that monster? 100 Megs of HD, 16-24 Megs RAM, and
>at least a 60 Mhz processor? I don't care how good it is (or
>isn't), there is NO excuse for taking resources like that when OS2
>or a Unix/X-Windows setup can do everything NT does on more like
>70, 8 and 25. In all but drive space that's HALF what NT requires.
>
This is a load of crap. A modern UNIX setup requires way more resources
than does NT, and OS/2 (a) doesn't compare to NT in terms of
capabilities, and (b) takes up just as much space in memory and on disk
if you install everything. You really need some first hand experience,
with both Windows 3.x and NT.
Jerry
j...@ix.netcom.com