Is Windows 3.xx an OS or a GUI for DOS?

treatment · Feb 5, 2000

Funny offshoot of another thread. Seems like certain people thinks that Windows-3.xx is an operating-system by itself. My own take: Win-3 is not an OS. It is just a GUI built on top of DOS to give DOS a graphical look. The OS is still the venerable DOS. Win-3 cannot exist without DOS. In other words, Win-3 relies on DOS to exist.What do you think? --treatment--

andrewme · Feb 5, 2000

I agree. As I mentioned in an previous thread WIN3 View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifOS = KDE/GNOME:UNIX. Basically, all it does is provide a shell for the capabilities of DOS. For example, how much is there in File Manager that you can't do at the CLI? All Program Manager does is give you icons for programs. If you want task-switching in DOS, DOSSHELL will do that. Win3 does provide some of it's own services (virtual mem, MCI, printing), but hardly enough to make it a full-fledged OS. If you could replace COMMAND.COM with WIN.COM and delete your \DOS dir (and IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS), then it would be.

Dgodfathr · Feb 5, 2000

Interesting you should mention it. My first experience with Windows must have been with Win 2.x when my dad installed it and presented it to me as a program that lets you run many programs at once. I was marvelled at the idea. It had never ocurred to me to run two programs at once. I just thought of Windows as another program.Then sometime in the early 90s I started noticing people calling win 3.x an OS which baffled me as I always thought of it as a special kind of program. So I think I would say that yes, win 3.x is not an OS by itself. But then again does that mean that Win 9x is not an OS by itself? Remember that win 9x is just Windows 4.x running on top of DOS 7.x with a forced integration of the two. Is the OS then really DOS 7.x?

IMarshal · Feb 5, 2000

Yawn.This has alreayd been discussed ad nauseum in the other thread. My personal opinion is that Win3x pushes the definition of an OS in some respect, but that it behaves so much like an OS that the distinction is semantic.For further illustration, I will simply rebroadcast my post from the other thread:It depends on what your definition of OS is. I'm not an OS purist, like Mr. "Only the kernel is an OS" John Campbell. To me Win3x was an OS because it looked like an OS and acted like an OS: <lu> <LI>It had its own API's. <LI>It had its own executable format and development tools <LI>It had its own memory management and I/O routines <LI>It had its own kernel and user interface <LI>It had drivers written for it that supported many different devices <LI>It had its own dynamic library implementation and its own component model(OLE) <LI>It had games and applications written for it </ul>Now, it wasn't a particularly good OS, but if you look at Win3x and say it's not an OS, I think you're just being pedantic. It did almost everything that an OS does - it just used DOS as a backend for certain things.I would also add that:<ul> <LI>It had its own primitive media libraries - MCI, WinG, Midi mapper. <LI>It had its own DOS box virtualization mechanism - those who say that Win3x just sat on top of DOS are simply wrong. </ul>So let's hear some technical arguments against it being an OS. The obvious one (it boots from DOS) is moot because so does Win9x and so can Linux, and no one with sufficient technical knowledge about either of these two systems would consider them anything but an OS.

IMarshal · Feb 5, 2000

Yawn.This has alreayd been discussed ad nauseum in the other thread. My personal opinion is that Win3x pushes the definition of an OS in some respect, but that it behaves so much like an OS that the distinction is semantic.For further illustration, I will simply rebroadcast my post from the other thread:It depends on what your definition of OS is. I'm not an OS purist, like Mr. "Only the kernel is an OS" John Campbell. To me Win3x was an OS because it looked like an OS and acted like an OS: <lu> <LI>It had its own API's. <LI>It had its own executable format and development tools <LI>It had its own memory management and I/O routines <LI>It had its own kernel and user interface <LI>It had drivers written for it that supported many different devices <LI>It had its own dynamic library implementation and its own component model(OLE) <LI>It had games and applications written for it </ul>Now, it wasn't a particularly good OS, but if you look at Win3x and say it's not an OS, I think you're just being pedantic. It did almost everything that an OS does - it just used DOS as a backend for certain things.I would also add that:<ul> <LI>It had its own primitive media libraries - MCI, WinG, Midi mapper. <LI>It had its own DOS box virtualization mechanism - those who say that Win3x just sat on top of DOS are simply wrong. </ul>So let's hear some technical arguments against it being an OS. The obvious one (it boots from DOS) is moot because so does Win9x and so can Linux, and no one with sufficient technical knowledge about either of these two systems would consider them anything but an OS.

Zer · Feb 5, 2000

Windows 3.1 utilizes DOS for file access, basic memory management (it still handled some bits -- virtual memory for instance -- on its own), and a few other minor services. In this way, DOS is the operating system.On the other hand, as far as anyone who isn't a terminology Nazi is concerned, it is an operating system. It looks, feels, and acts like an operating system. It has its own executable format, its own apps (which do not run in DOS...none of them do actually), its own driver model and drivers, etc. A GUI shell for DOS would imply that DOS is doing the majority of the work. It's not. The only thing DOS provides the largest portion of is a) bootup and b) file services.I might consider Windows 3.1 to not be the operating system except for one thing. Never do I need to use *any* underlying services of DOS. All coding can be done within and for the Windows 3.1 environment. No need to use any underlying interrupts (DOS really didn't have anything BUT interrupts to communicate with programs anyway View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif. As such, Windows 3.1 is the operating system.

RiscRocket · Feb 5, 2000

IMarshal said: "I'm not an OS purist, like Mr. "Only the kernel is an OS" John Campbell."Well, JC certainly should reaffirm if this his position, but if it is, I find it _extremely_ hilarious that in the N-Way thread, some posters held that Darwin is a kernel, therefore Darwin is _not_ an OS. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifSomeone get Ophidian on the phone!!

treatment · Feb 5, 2000

IMarshal and Zer,I take it by your respective definitions, you both consider XWindows/Xfree86 as an operating-system also?Btw, Win9x is still DOS, tho much of DOS is already hidden, except the DOS system-files. I like to reference this url http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html#ixm to support my argument. Read what Microsoft's own Win95 product-manager and the lead DOS and Win31-developer admitted.Btw, this one is a classic: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The obvious one (it boots from DOS) is moot because so does Win9x and so can Linux, and no one with sufficient technical knowledge about either of these two systems would consider them anything but an OS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't know Linux needs DOS to boot. When did that happened? --treatment--

RiscRocket · Feb 5, 2000

Oh, and as for this W3.1 thing, win3.1 is _not_ an operating system. It absolutely requires that DOS be installed, and therefore 3.1 is a superset of DOS. Or, let's call it the DOS GUI. Whatever. Win3.1 is absolutely _not_ a stand-alone OS.

klinzhai · Feb 5, 2000

Win3.x (and 9x for that matter) is simply a GUI with Dos extenders and drivers loaded dynamically(32-bit in the matter of Win9x). The real question is 'what makes an OS'. Is the simple ability to run SOMETHING enough or the ability to run ANYTHING(within platform limits). It becomes really tough to say as you can simply say that Wordperfect is an OS (as it is a GUI for running WPx files) if you let the definition become too loose.

Yagisama · Feb 5, 2000

"operating enviorment" is what it was called.

IMarshal · Feb 5, 2000

Let's go one by one here:treatment:You seem to be a bit confused. The X-Window System is not an OS in the same way that Win3x is because it doesn't have its own executable format, memory management, I/O routines, kernel, virtual memory manager or general purpose device driver model. X is just a user interface.As for Win9x just being DOS, well, that's bullshit. Let me repost an oldie of mine for the sake of you and klinzhai, who, like the common donkey, makes the same mistake again and again:<hr>Win9x is a lot more than a DOS extender. The way to think of it is two kernels side by side: the 16 bit Win16 kernel and a true 32 bit kernel. The former exists for 16 bit support (DOS and Win16) and is responsible for most of the flakiness in the OS. The latter exists for Win32 support and is a solid modern kernel with PMT and true VM support.One could actually implement Windows 9x without DOS and Win16 support and it would be a lot more stable than it is currently (AFAIK that was the plan for the ill-fated Millennium project). Most Win9x lockups and crashes are caused by either 16 bit applications, the 16 bit GDI, 16 bit drivers (or interaction between 32 bit drivers and the weird kernel architecture).Anyway, I know it's trendy to say that Win9x is just DOS with a shell, but that's just not the case. Win9x uses DOS as a bootstrap, just like NT uses NTLDR; Win9x puts the CPU into protected mode, has its own native drivers, and does its own memory management. To say that Win9x isn't a full OS is inaccurate. It just makes a few compatibility concessions to run 16 bit apps.<hr>Now, concerning your Caldera link, I must say that for a lead developer, Phil Barrett is remarkable clueless. Read this quote carefully: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That basically, yes, there is DOS on the underlying -- under the hood there is DOS. There is a form of DOS, a version of DOS that was -- and I don't know all of the details of what developed. I don't understand all they did there, but you can actually produce a bootable DOS diskette. There is still 16-bit code inside.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaks for itself, I think (markups mine). Of course there's 16 bit code in Win9x; but to say that Win9x is just DOS with pictures is ridiculous.Here's a slightly more readable and interesting link on the subject from Byte magazine: http://www.byte.com/art/9508/sec6/art4.htmConcerning Linux booting from DOS, I think you need to learn to read, treatment. I said that Linux can boot from DOS. Are you denying that?RiscRocket:No one said Win3x is a standalone OS. Obviously it still needs DOS for some things. But considering all that Win3x does, it's absurd in my mind to pedantically claim that it isn't an OS. In my view, it does exactly what an OS does, while relying on DOS for some functionality.Now, all you nay sayers, here's a simple way to make me yield to your viewpoint: propose a necessary condition for being an OS that Win3x does not possess. If such a condition exists, I'll agree with you. I've mentioned several things that Win3x does that makes it OS-like in my mind. The burdens on you to provide arguments against it, not just opinions like "it's just DOS with a UI". Let's be more sophisticated here.

IMarshal · Feb 5, 2000

Let's go one by one here:treatment:You seem to be a bit confused. The X-Window System is not an OS in the same way that Win3x is because it doesn't have its own executable format, memory management, I/O routines, kernel, virtual memory manager or general purpose device driver model. X is just a user interface.As for Win9x just being DOS, well, that's bullshit. Let me repost an oldie of mine for the sake of you and klinzhai, who, like the common donkey, makes the same mistake again and again:<hr>Win9x is a lot more than a DOS extender. The way to think of it is two kernels side by side: the 16 bit Win16 kernel and a true 32 bit kernel. The former exists for 16 bit support (DOS and Win16) and is responsible for most of the flakiness in the OS. The latter exists for Win32 support and is a solid modern kernel with PMT and true VM support.One could actually implement Windows 9x without DOS and Win16 support and it would be a lot more stable than it is currently (AFAIK that was the plan for the ill-fated Millennium project). Most Win9x lockups and crashes are caused by either 16 bit applications, the 16 bit GDI, 16 bit drivers (or interaction between 32 bit drivers and the weird kernel architecture).Anyway, I know it's trendy to say that Win9x is just DOS with a shell, but that's just not the case. Win9x uses DOS as a bootstrap, just like NT uses NTLDR; Win9x puts the CPU into protected mode, has its own native drivers, and does its own memory management. To say that Win9x isn't a full OS is inaccurate. It just makes a few compatibility concessions to run 16 bit apps.<hr>Now, concerning your Caldera link, I must say that for a lead developer, Phil Barrett is remarkable clueless. Read this quote carefully: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That basically, yes, there is DOS on the underlying -- under the hood there is DOS. There is a form of DOS, a version of DOS that was -- and I don't know all of the details of what developed. I don't understand all they did there, but you can actually produce a bootable DOS diskette. There is still 16-bit code inside.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaks for itself, I think (markups mine). Of course there's 16 bit code in Win9x; but to say that Win9x is just DOS with pictures is ridiculous.Here's a slightly more readable and interesting link on the subject from Byte magazine: http://www.byte.com/art/9508/sec6/art4.htmConcerning Linux booting from DOS, I think you need to learn to read, treatment. I said that Linux can boot from DOS. Are you denying that?RiscRocket:No one said Win3x is a standalone OS. Obviously it still needs DOS for some things. But considering all that Win3x does, it's absurd in my mind to pedantically claim that it isn't an OS. In my view, it does exactly what an OS does, while relying on DOS for some functionality.Now, all you nay sayers, here's a simple way to make me yield to your viewpoint: propose a necessary condition for being an OS that Win3x does not possess. If such a condition exists, I'll agree with you. I've mentioned several things that Win3x does that makes it OS-like in my mind. The burdens on you to provide arguments against it, not just opinions like "it's just DOS with a UI". Let's be more sophisticated here.

AndersW · Feb 5, 2000

This is rather pointless, isn't it? Win 3.x and DOS is an OS that's clearly distinguishable from just DOS. In the same way that win9x is clearly distinguishable from Win 3.x + DOS. In my opinion Win 3.x was a substantial enhancement to DOS, win9x is somewhere in the border zone between a new OS and a further DOS enhancement, and NT is a completely different beast.

AndersW · Feb 5, 2000

This is rather pointless, isn't it? Win 3.x and DOS is an OS that's clearly distinguishable from just DOS. In the same way that win9x is clearly distinguishable from Win 3.x + DOS. In my opinion Win 3.x was a substantial enhancement to DOS, win9x is somewhere in the border zone between a new OS and a further DOS enhancement, and NT is a completely different beast.

DrPizza · Feb 5, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Windows 3.1 utilizes DOS for file access<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Boink.Windows 3.1 used its own routines. Windows 3.11 had even more; IIRC, Windows 3.11 could use 32-bit file and disk access throughout. IIRC, that file and disk access was largely lifted and used in Windows 95.Windows 3.x relied on himem.sys to provide greater-than-1 Mb support, but it didn't rely on himem.sys for memory management. Importantly, it had its own VM implementation.It also had its own device drivers.It was also responsible for a large amount of hardware control.It's more than just an operating environment.

Ozguid · Feb 5, 2000

How about this: It's neither. It's not an OS, but it IS an extension to DOS. You could call it an os, because it has: <LI>virtual memory <LI>its own executable format <LI>multitasking <LI>its own drivers <LI>its own memory management system It's definitely a hell of a lot more of an OS then KDE/GNOME or X is- it offers extensions to the kernel, listed above. X s just a GUI layer that allows local programs to connect to it and display information- all of the memory management, multitasking, and other things are done by the system itself, which is NOT AT ALL like Windows 3.x, which didn't let DOS do it, since it didn't have any multitasking at all!It's quite debatable.

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

IMarshal, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You seem to be a bit confused. The X-Window System is not an OS in the same way that Win3x is because it doesn't have its own executable format, memory management, I/O routines, kernel, virtual memory manager or general purpose device driver model. X is just a user interface. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehe. So let me get this straight: you're saying that the executable-formats COM and EXE are Win3x only?? Let me sweeten the argument a little more. Based on your revised assumptions, then GNOME is an operating-system by itself? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now, concerning your Caldera link, I must say that for a lead developer, Phil Barrett is remarkable clueless. Read this quote carefully:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's just say that it's a known MS legal-tactic to be clue-less in a court-room. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, I know it's trendy to say that Win9x is just DOS with a shell, but that's just not the case. Win9x uses DOS as a bootstrap, just like NT uses NTLDR; Win9x puts the CPU into protected mode, has its own native drivers, and does its own memory management. To say that Win9x isn't a full OS is inaccurate. It just makes a few compatibility concessions to run 16 bit apps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The question now is Why?. Why doesn't MS just re-write the system-files called windows.sys, windowsio.sys, wincommand.com. The 16-bit compatibility-issue angle is moot and misleading, as there are far less Win16-programs than Win32-programs in the market to serve. And to further the issue, why does the old OS/2 have their successful win-os/2 session-utility within OS/2, and why can NT do the same 16-bit functions without relying on an anonymous/hidden DOS? If Win9x is a real OS, then it shouldn't need DOS system-files at all and should be able to host/translate 8-bit/16-bit apps without requiring DOS-7 somewhere in its system hierarchy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Concerning Linux booting from DOS, I think you need to learn to read, treatment. I said that Linux can boot from DOS. Are you denying that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I answered intentionally because you're twisting your own words. Win3x/Win9x needs DOS to boot. You try to confused us by your use of can and mentioning Linux. I answered with the qualifier that Linux doesn't need DOS to boot, just to be consistent with the issue of Win3x/Win9x needing DOS to boot. The distraction-issue you raised regarding Linux can boot from DOS is a meant as a smoke-screen on your part. Fwiw, the utility loadlin is the one invoked to boot linux, not linux itself. What does loadlin do? It reboots the computer so that linux can load itself in place of DOS. --treatment--

Zer · Feb 6, 2000

Hey idiot, COM isn't a Win16 or Win32 format. Also, if you would go and take yourself a look at www.wotsit.org you can easily find out that the file format for DOS EXEs is ENTIRELY different from that of both Win16 and Win32 EXEs. Just because it's the same suffix doesn't mean it is the same file format. At all.Let's just say that it's also a known anyone but Microsoft tactic, apparently, to whine in the courtroom because all their products are vast rotting compost heaps.And regarding NT using 16-bit functions without an anonymous or hidden DOS, may I point out that to run 16-bit applications NT loads the DOS/Win16 subsystem....

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Zer: Hey idiot, COM isn't a Win16 or Win32 format. Also, if you would go and take yourself a look at www.wotsit.org you can easily find out that the file format for DOS EXEs is ENTIRELY different from that of both Win16 and Win32 EXEs. Just because it's the same suffix doesn't mean it is the same file format. At all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're the idiot. What is Win.com for yah? DUHHH! Precisely. You're all smoke, man. Btw, imho, the only thing that separates the win16/win32 EXE-file is the use of the header windows.h in the source-code. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Let's just say that it's also a known anyone but Microsoft tactic, apparently, to whine in the courtroom because all their products are vast rotting compost heaps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Non-sequitur and baseless. Ain't nothing there, man. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And regarding NT using 16-bit functions without an anonymous or hidden DOS, may I point out that to run 16-bit applications NT loads the DOS/Win16 subsystem....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Precisely my point. If NT can do it and NT is a full-pledged OS, then nothing's really stopping an "O-S" like Win9x to do it that way and better without DOS at all, no? You need to re-read the argument again before you shoot you type something. --treatment--

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

treatment: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>you're saying that the executable-formats COM and EXE are Win3x only??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I'm saying that Win16 has an executable format that differs to a huge degree from the DOS executable format. Are you disputing this? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Based on your revised assumptions, then GNOME is an operating-system by itself?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't have a clue, do you? Just like X, Gnome lacks its own executable format, memory management, I/O routines, kernel, virtual memory manager or general purpose device driver model. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The question now is Why?. Why doesn't MS just re-write the system-files called windows.sys, windowsio.sys, wincommand.com. The 16-bit compatibility-issue angle is moot and misleading, as there are far less Win16-programs than Win32-programs in the market to serve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At the time Windows 95 came out, the world was 16 bit and Microsoft had to provide near-100% compatibility with all existing Win16 applications and, more significantly, all existing DOS games. NT's DOS emulation (which includes a CPU emulator, BTW) compromises compatibility by disallowing VESA modes and direct hardware access, so very few DOS games run under NT. The Win9x approach allowed early adopters to run their old software as if it were running natively.Currently, though, there's no real excuse to maintain such excellent levels of backwards compatibility, since no one runs 16 bit software anymore. But at the time, it was fundamental. You'll notice that no started using NT4 until Win95 was solidly implanted in the consumer market and most applications were 32 bit. Win95 was in essence a bridge to Win32 for Microsoft, destined to be replaced by NT.As for why they don't rewrite the OS now, well, that's what Windows 2000 is all about. From what I've heard, the classic Windows team within Microsoft isn't really much of a team anymore anyway. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What does loadlin do? It reboots the computer so that linux can load itself in place of DOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, the Linux expert speaks. You've never used loadlin, have you? What it does is boot Linux up from DOS, with no reboot required.Now, imagine a world where no LILO exists, only loadlin. Linux would still be an OS even if it needed DOS to load, wouldn't it? This is my counter-argument for the people who say "Win3x and Win9x need DOS to boot up, so they're not real OS's". The important thing is what goes on after the OS boots, not how it boots.Anyway, treatment, don't take this personally, but just like you think people should learn about Linux before they discuss it publicly, I think that you should educate yourself on how the Microsoft world works before you post your nonsense. It just makes you look stupid, and I know you're not.Edit: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Btw, imho, the only thing that separates the win16/win32 EXE-file is the use of the header windows.h in the source-code.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Heheh, you're making my point here. Talk about clueless.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited February 05, 2000).]

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

IMarshal, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You don't have a clue, do you? Just like X, Gnome lacks its own executable format, memory management, I/O routines, kernel, virtual memory manager or general purpose device driver model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. Besides executable format, GNome has everything you basically want. You have programmed in GNome, right? As far as executable-format for GNome-apps, it's moot as it is compiler-dependent. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LOL, the Linux expert speaks. You've never used loadlin, have you? What it does is boot Linux up from DOS, with no reboot required.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>??? Have you ever actually invoked or used loadlin at all? Putting the loadlin.exe on the autoexec.bat doesn't count as linux booting from DOS. How the heck do you actually run loadlin without a reboot/restart? You're fibbin'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now, imagine a world where no LILO exists, only loadlin. Linux would still be an OS even if it needed DOS to load, wouldn't it? This is my counter-argument for the people who say "Win3x and Win9x need DOS to boot up, so they're not real OS's". The important thing is what goes on after the OS boots, not how it boots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. Pure imagination on your part. Fwiw, even the linux boot-floppy is not recognized in DOS. So, where's the analogy you're trying to invoke? I'm gonna tip my hand here and tell yah that in order for loadlin to work, it needs a copy of the linux boot-kernel and system-maps. The fact that loadlin.exe runs on DOS is irrelevant: Loadlin is a helper-utility and was purposely built to help capture hardware-info from initialized hardware. Very few people uses them now, as you see around you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that you should educate yourself on how the Microsoft world works before you post your nonsense. It just makes you look stupid, and I know you're not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ. I do know how the MS world works because I work with it and under it. Since I've been on both sides of it and clearly you're still in software-dev of it, may I just say that theory doesn't always work in the real world and promises(propaganda?) falls short of actual implementations. --treatment--

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

IMarshal, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: Btw, imho, the only thing that separates the win16/win32 EXE-file is the use of the header windows.h in the source-code. Heheh, you're making my point here. Talk about clueless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup. Clueles as charged. I've been out of it before MFC was even accepted and won the battle against OWL. --treatment--

Dan · Feb 6, 2000

treatment got bored. It appears as though regardless of what people say you feel compelled to challenge them. This thing was debated to death in the other thread and now you're going through the same routine again. What's the point?

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

treatment: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Besides executable format, GNome has everything you basically want. You have programmed in GNome, right? As far as executable-format for GNome-apps, it's moot as it is compiler-dependent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. I haven't programmed for Gnome, although I have read the Bonobo docs - what an outrageous ripoff of COM... But any child knows that Gnome doesn't do any of the things that you claim it does: it's the Linux kernel that handles those things. Or do you think that just because there's a gnome_malloc(), or some such thing, that suddenly it manages virtual memory? Please. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>??? Have you ever actually invoked or used loadlin at all? Putting the loadlin.exe on the autoexec.bat doesn't count as linux booting from DOS. How the heck do you actually run loadlin without a reboot/restart? You're fibbin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jeez, I don't know how much clearer I have to make it. Here, this is from the <a href="http://elserv.ffm.fgan.de/~lermen/manual.txt">LoadLin manual</a>: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LOADLIN is a utility which starts a "logical reload" of your machine, causing DOS to be completely overlaid with Linux. When you wish to return to DOS you must use the Linux "reboot" command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So LoadLin acts like any DOS program - it overwrites the DOS 'kernel' in memory and runs itself. Except in this case, it loads up a Linux kernel image and bootstraps it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At the DOS prompt you can type, for example:C:> CD \LOADLIN C $:\$ LOADLIN> LOADLIN zimage /dev/hdb1 ro vga=ask<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, it's just like running 'win.com' and loading Windows 95! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pure imagination on your part. Fwiw, even the linux boot-floppy is not recognized in DOS. So, where's the analogy you're trying to invoke?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you can't see it, you're blind. And yes, the world without LILO is a thought experiment on my part - but a very illustrative one, because it tells us that just because DOS boots up 'Y', 'Y' isn't necessary less of an OS because of it.(And yes, I know what LoadLin is for; it's for more than just hardware info - it's for cowards who are scared to overwrite a boot sector but want to run Linux anyway.)I'd give it up if I were you - you're clearly out-clued. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I beg to differ. I do know how the MS world works because I work with it and under it. Since I've been on both sides of it and clearly you're still in software-dev of it, may I just say that theory doesn't always work in the real world and promises(propaganda?) falls short of actual implementations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is material for another thread and quite off-topic. But from what I've seen of you, I clearly know more about the world of Linux than you do about the current state of Win32 in the 'real world'. You may administer it, but you don't appear to know very much about how it works (DirectX in CD-R software indeed...)

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

treatment: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Besides executable format, GNome has everything you basically want. You have programmed in GNome, right? As far as executable-format for GNome-apps, it's moot as it is compiler-dependent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. I haven't programmed for Gnome, although I have read the Bonobo docs - what an outrageous ripoff of COM... But any child knows that Gnome doesn't do any of the things that you claim it does: it's the Linux kernel that handles those things. Or do you think that just because there's a gnome_malloc(), or some such thing, that suddenly it manages virtual memory? Please. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>??? Have you ever actually invoked or used loadlin at all? Putting the loadlin.exe on the autoexec.bat doesn't count as linux booting from DOS. How the heck do you actually run loadlin without a reboot/restart? You're fibbin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jeez, I don't know how much clearer I have to make it. Here, this is from the LoadLin manual: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LOADLIN is a utility which starts a "logical reload" of your machine, causing DOS to be completely overlaid with Linux. When you wish to return to DOS you must use the Linux "reboot" command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So LoadLin acts like any DOS program - it overwrites the DOS 'kernel' in memory and runs itself. Except in this case, it loads up a Linux kernel image and bootstraps it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At the DOS prompt you can type, for example:C:> CD \LOADLIN C $:\$ LOADLIN> LOADLIN zimage /dev/hdb1 ro vga=ask<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, it's just like running 'win.com' and loading Windows 95! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pure imagination on your part. Fwiw, even the linux boot-floppy is not recognized in DOS. So, where's the analogy you're trying to invoke?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you can't see it, you're blind. And yes, the world without LILO is a thought experiment on my part - but a very illustrative one, because it tells us that just because DOS boots up 'Y', 'Y' isn't necessary less of an OS because of it.(And yes, I know what LoadLin is for; it's for more than just hardware info - it's for cowards who are scared to overwrite a boot sector but want to run Linux anyway.)I'd give it up if I were you - you're clearly out-clued. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I beg to differ. I do know how the MS world works because I work with it and under it. Since I've been on both sides of it and clearly you're still in software-dev of it, may I just say that theory doesn't always work in the real world and promises(propaganda?) falls short of actual implementations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is material for another thread and quite off-topic. But from what I've seen of you, I clearly know more about the world of Linux than you do about the current state of Win32 in the 'real world'. You may administer it, but you don't appear to know very much about how it works (DirectX in CD-R software indeed...)

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

IMarshal, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. I haven't programmed for Gnome, although I have read the Bonobo docs - what an outrageous ripoff of COM... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which came first? CORBA or COM? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But any child knows that Gnome doesn't do any of the things that you claim it does: it's the Linux kernel that handles those things. Or do you think that just because there's a gnome_malloc(), or some such thing, that suddenly it manages virtual memory? Please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. GLib handles those stuff. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jeez, I don't know how much clearer I have to make it. Here, this is from the LoadLin manual:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can quote all you want. I asked you yourself of how you run loadlin and you refer me to a how-to. Figures as much you don't run it on your own.Btw, this was my original post about loadlin: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What does loadlin do? It reboots the computer so that linux can load itself in place of DOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember that? Now you compare that to the how-to. Fascinating, huh? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Wow, it's just like running 'win.com' and loading Windows 95!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, nope. Like I stated all along this thread, Win3x/Win9x needs DOS. Linux doesn't need DOS to boot. Loadlin is used in DOS coz it's written in DOS. Loadlin just shows yah how versatile linux is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>f you can't see it, you're blind. And yes, the world without LILO is a thought experiment on my part - but a very illustrative one, because it tells us that just because DOS boots up 'Y', 'Y' isn't necessary less of an OS because of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point it to me coz I'm blind like you wish me to be. You got no analogy because it's an imaginary issue. Once again, let me re-iterate: Linux doesn't need nor is required to load from DOS. Win3x/Win9x needs and requires DOS. Loadlin is a helper-utility, not an important part of linux. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(And yes, I know what LoadLin is for; it's for more than just hardware info - it's for cowards who are scared to overwrite a boot sector but want to run Linux anyway.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh??? Here's a clue for yah: people who's afraid to overwrite the boot-sector with Lilo is told to make linux boot-disks!. I may say that I already tipped my hand about loadlin's function of capturing initialized hardware-info and you failed to comprehend the significance of that captured info. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'd give it up if I were you - you're clearly out-clued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really now, who's the actual one out-clued here? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But from what I've seen of you, I clearly know more about the world of Linux than you do about the current state of Win32 in the 'real world'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhh, you do, huh? So how do you explained your loadlin-inexperience? You just write Win-apps. That's it. I doubt you work everyday to make sure it actually works when implemented on multiple computers and multiple environments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You may administer it, but you don't appear to know very much about how it works (DirectX in CD-R software indeed...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you're the one who polluted that discussion before and just homed in on DirectX and not the MFC angle I simultaneously brought up with DX, let me re-iterate it again: I still believe there's a connection there of why it works better in one particular environment and not the others, and the only way to know is for the vendors to release their actual proprietary software-source for it. --treatment--

Hasty · Feb 6, 2000

Just to throw in my two (admittedly worthless) cents, I'd say the confusion stems from DOS not really being an operating system in the first place. I mean this in the sense that I think of an operating system as being a software buffer between hardware and applications, and DOS doesn't actually act as this buffer. So I would state that DOS != OS, but DOS + Win 3.x = OS. Or maybe not, the whole thing just seems so subjective.

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

Christ, what a pointless discussion this has derived into. It's like arguing with a child. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Which came first? CORBA or COM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's irrelevant, if you look at Bonobo. Don't tell me that GNOME::Unknown and its methods and the semantics of Bonobo aren't completely ripped off from COM. Innovation indeed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Nope. GLib handles those stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look, you can repeat it as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true. GLib is a wrapper around a lot of OS functionality, and not a bad one, but it doesn't implement anything particularly OS-like. Surely with even your limited coding experience you can recognize this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I asked you yourself of how you run loadlin and you refer me to a how-to. Figures as much you don't run it on your own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, you're embarrassed, huh? Now, I don't run LoadLin myself - I'm not scared of munging my boot sector, although when I install Linux on one of my systems it usually gets booted via ntldr. But your claim that LoadLin reboots the machine prior to running the Linux kernel image is simply wrong. Read the fscking how-to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Uhh, nope. Like I stated all along this thread, Win3x/Win9x needs DOS. Linux doesn't need DOS to boot. Loadlin is used in DOS coz it's written in DOS. Loadlin just shows yah how versatile linux is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you could explain from a technical perspective exactly what these versions of Windows need DOS for, exactly. (That would be an entertaining read, I'm sure.) Since you claim that these OS's aren't actually OS's, I'm sure that you know exactly DOS does when these OS's are running, right?The point of my bringing up LoadLin, BTW, was to demonstrate that it's not a necessary condition to have a DOS-independent bootstrap in order to be an OS; that's all. Now, please provide me with the necessary condition for being an OS that Win3x and Win9x do not possess. I'm dying to hear it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You just write Win-apps. That's it. I doubt you work everyday to make sure it actually works when implemented on multiple computers and multiple environments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you'd be surprised. I've done professional development for Linux, for example. (And no, I'm not going to tell you what I wrote.) The GPL'd project I'm currently working on is platform independent, although I develop it on NT. And the computers in my office at work include three different CPU platforms. So don't give me any crap about single-environment development, treatment, 'cause you'll lose.Anyway, I have very little to discuss with someone who thinks that it's a necessary condition for a CD-R app to support DirectX and MFC in order to function. Unless you can come up with a compelling argument why Win3x isn't an OS, kindly spend your time elsewhere.

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

Christ, what a pointless discussion this has derived into. It's like arguing with a child. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Which came first? CORBA or COM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's irrelevant, if you look at Bonobo. Don't tell me that GNOME::Unknown and its methods and the semantics of Bonobo aren't completely ripped off from COM. Innovation indeed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Nope. GLib handles those stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look, you can repeat it as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true. GLib is a wrapper around a lot of OS functionality, and not a bad one, but it doesn't implement anything particularly OS-like. Surely with even your limited coding experience you can recognize this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I asked you yourself of how you run loadlin and you refer me to a how-to. Figures as much you don't run it on your own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, you're embarrassed, huh? Now, I don't run LoadLin myself - I'm not scared of munging my boot sector, although when I install Linux on one of my systems it usually gets booted via ntldr. But your claim that LoadLin reboots the machine prior to running the Linux kernel image is simply wrong. Read the fscking how-to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Uhh, nope. Like I stated all along this thread, Win3x/Win9x needs DOS. Linux doesn't need DOS to boot. Loadlin is used in DOS coz it's written in DOS. Loadlin just shows yah how versatile linux is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you could explain from a technical perspective exactly what these versions of Windows need DOS for, exactly. (That would be an entertaining read, I'm sure.) Since you claim that these OS's aren't actually OS's, I'm sure that you know exactly DOS does when these OS's are running, right?The point of my bringing up LoadLin, BTW, was to demonstrate that it's not a necessary condition to have a DOS-independent bootstrap in order to be an OS; that's all. Now, please provide me with the necessary condition for being an OS that Win3x and Win9x do not possess. I'm dying to hear it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You just write Win-apps. That's it. I doubt you work everyday to make sure it actually works when implemented on multiple computers and multiple environments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you'd be surprised. I've done professional development for Linux, for example. (And no, I'm not going to tell you what I wrote.) The GPL'd project I'm currently working on is platform independent, although I develop it on NT. And the computers in my office at work include three different CPU platforms. So don't give me any crap about single-environment development, treatment, 'cause you'll lose.Anyway, I have very little to discuss with someone who thinks that it's a necessary condition for a CD-R app to support DirectX and MFC in order to function. Unless you can come up with a compelling argument why Win3x isn't an OS, kindly spend your time elsewhere.

Zer · Feb 6, 2000

Heh heh, treatment, thank you for giving me a perfect response.What is Win.com? I had forgotten that Windows 3.1 ran from a COM file! This sheds some new light to this argument. First of all, no, Win.com is not a native Windows application. You can't run it inside any version of Windows and expect it to, uh, well what ARE you expecting it to do? Or was this just some random response?Which brings up a good point. The difference between a COM and an EXE file. An executable file goes into memory where the operating system places it. A COM file, on the other hand, has to be loaded into the first sixty four kilobytes of RAM. Which makes one wonder, does it indeed need DOS? Or was DOS merely allowed to launch it for reasons of backwards compatibility? When Windows 3.11 was released there were still a significant portion of DOS apps, I'd imagine. PeterB is correct that Windows 3.1 accesses files via its own routines. My mistake. I should have clarified and said it has DOS assign the drive letters, which it does.Regarding the difference between DOS, Win16 and Win32 executables, the binary format of the header is entirely different. You can go to www.wotsit.org, as I suggest, and read up on the differences between the DOS, NE, and PE executable formats. The header has nothing at all to do with it. Oh yeah, COM files can't be native Windows executables in either form, for the reason stated above and because, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is no way to place an import table into a COM file...Not only that, you include windows.h in both Win16 and Win32. The APIs are different also, some because memory is no longer stuck in 64k blocks, and some because, welp, the amount of bits changed, and some because cooperative multitasking is a thing of the past.Oh yeah, and about the 'anyone but Microsoft' tactic, it's not entirely baseless. It was something of a rant instead of a highly researched conclusion, but all one has to do is go look at Netscape Communicator to see what I mean. Haha.One thing is stopping Win9x. It's a piece of shit. It will always be a piece of shit. Get used to this fact. Saying that Win9x should be able to do something because NT can..well, umm, I go back to my 'Win9x is a piece of shit' argument.. heheMerry Christmas y'all or whatever. To all a good night, anyway

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

/me rolling my eyes IMarshal, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That's irrelevant, if you look at Bonobo. Don't tell me that GNOME::Unknown and its methods and the semantics of Bonobo aren't completely ripped off from COM. Innovation indeed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wanna read the Gnome-FAQ? Here: http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq/html/x37.html . Here're the first two faq-entry: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <LI>GNOME uses the Object Management Group's Common Object Request Broker Architecture to allow software components to inter-operate seamlessly, regardless of the language in which they are implemented, or even what machine they are running on! (See CORBA).<LI>The GNOME community is working hard on developing an object model called Bonobo. Based on CORBA and similar to Microsoft's Object Linking and Embedding, v2 (OLE2), Bonobo will allow programmers to export and/or import componentized resources. This, for example, would allow users to use whatever editor they like in their development environment, provided that their editor supported via CORBA a standardized editor interface (See Bonobo). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't really know what to make of the following comment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LOL, you're embarrassed, huh? Now, I don't run LoadLin myself - I'm not scared of munging my boot sector, although when I install Linux on one of my systems it usually gets booted via ntldr. But your claim that LoadLin reboots the machine prior to running the Linux kernel image is simply wrong. Read the fscking how-to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's see here. You have not run loadlin and yet claim that it don't reboot the machine when invoked. Hmmm. Now, here I am who had run loadlin personally many times for many years, suddenly I don't know what the heck I'm doing and I should read the how-to because IMarshal has not run loadlin at all and yet contradict an actual field-usage from me??? Could somebody else decipher IMarshal's loadlin-cluelessness? Tell you what. Run loadlin on your own and tell us if your PC get or don't get rebooted. Simple. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps you could explain from a technical perspective exactly what these versions of Windows need DOS for, exactly. (That would be an entertaining read, I'm sure.) Since you claim that these OS's aren't actually OS's, I'm sure that you know exactly DOS does when these OS's are running, right? The point of my bringing up LoadLin, BTW, was to demonstrate that it's not a necessary condition to have a DOS-independent bootstrap in order to be an OS; that's all. Now, please provide me with the necessary condition for being an OS that Win3x and Win9x do not possess. I'm dying to hear it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A vain attempt to shift, yet again? You still have not disproved anything I put forward. Since you're the Win-app expert, you tell me if your Win3x/Win9x PC boots and be used the same way without the DOS system-files from any current directories existing. Shift all you want. You're the one who claimed that Win3x is an OS, not me. Since you have no idea how loadlin actually works, your loadlin-imagination is irrelevant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, I have very little to discuss with someone who thinks that it's a necessary condition for a CD-R app to support DirectX and MFC in order to function. Unless you can come up with a compelling argument why Win3x isn't an OS, kindly spend your time elsewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I already stated my position in the DX/MFC issue and it is irrelevant in this discussion. You're getting way off-topic because you can't prove your "Windows 3.1 is an OS" assertion. You are trying to wiggle out from hanging yourself in this thread.Btw, I don't care if you develop for linux or not. I don't care if you develop for Windows, too. My point was that you just write software. You're not the one operating, maintaining, implementing and supporting it everyday on different and multiple hardware/software configurations. Somebody else is. You can have all your theories and stuff, but if it doesn't work as advertized, then it just doesn't work as claimed.C'mon. Try loadlin and tell us exactly what happens when you invoke it. Delete all traces of DOS system-files and boot and use your Win3x/Win9x PC afterwards. Simple experiments for your own sake. Don't try to hide behind non-sequitur smokescreens. --treatment--

iceburn · Feb 6, 2000

I really don't want to add to the flame, but oh well, here goes... View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI have seen references on this topic that imply X is considered by some to be an OS. I have been programming under X for a few years, and KDE for a year, and I have NEVER heard anyone refer to X as an OS. It just isn't. The X window system is not even a GUI. And along those same lines, many people, especially RMS, don't even consider Linux to be an OS, it's just the kernel. The OS is GNU/Linux. I really don't know what to say about Win9x running on top of DOS, as I don't have much experience with Win9x. Just one more nugget of information: on systems that dual-boot Linux/WinNT, there is a tiny FAT16 partition in addition to the NTFS partition that is visible only from Linux, it appears that WinNT hides this partition. IIRC, WinNT boots off of this partition, because it cannot boot off of its native FS. If some of the logic on this thread is true, then WinNT should be a shell running on top of DOS as well, since it has to boot from DOS.

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

Ugh, double post. Looks like a UBB bug, since all I did was edit.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited February 06, 2000).]

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

treatment:You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, since your quote proves my point: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Based on CORBA and similar to Microsoft's Object Linking and Embedding, v2 (OLE2), Bonobo will allow programmers to export and/or import componentized resources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They admit themselves that their component model is similar to COM, don't they? And if you look at their base interface, the semantics are identical. Now, I don't expect you to understand this, since you know little about programming and nothing about COM, but believe me - even the names of the methods are almost the same.Concerning LoadLin, I will insist once again: LoadLin does not reboot the machine when run. To determine the truth of this, download LoopLinux from http://www.tux.org/pub/people/kent-robotti/index.html and try it for yourself. You're lying when you claim that a reboot occurs. It doesn't.Returning to the point of the thread... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You still have not disproved anything I put forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you haven't put anything forward to support your claim that Win3x isn't an OS.All you've done is intoxicate about how Win3x is booted (via DOS), which is clearly an insufficient counter-argument, because it's clear to everyone but you that an OS isn't defined by its booting mechanism. You have yet to produce a single solid point to prove that Win3x isn't an OS, and you've covered yourself in bullshit repeatedly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My point was that you just write software. You're not the one operating, maintaining, implementing and supporting it everyday on different and multiple hardware/software configurations. Somebody else is. You can have all your theories and stuff, but if it doesn't work as advertized, then it just doesn't work as claimed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is too funny. You know how to install Windows 95 from a CD, so you're the OS expert, huh? I hate to be classist, but I've never met a sysadmin who had a clue, and you're no exception to that rule. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since you're the Win-app expert, you tell me if your Win3x/Win9x PC boots and be used the same way without the DOS system-files from any current directories existing. Shift all you want. You're the one who claimed that Win3x is an OS, not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've provided a number of reasons why I think Win3x is an OS. You have provided nothing but intoxication, just like everytime you argue with anybody. The burden of proof is on you and those who claim Win3x isn't an OS.Edit: Fix tag.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited February 06, 2000).]

IMarshal · Feb 6, 2000

treatment:You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, since your quote proves my point: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Based on CORBA and similar to Microsoft's Object Linking and Embedding, v2 (OLE2), Bonobo will allow programmers to export and/or import componentized resources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They admit themselves that their component model is similar to COM, don't they? And if you look at their base interface, the semantics are identical. Now, I don't expect you to understand this, since you know little about programming and nothing about COM, but believe me - even the names of the methods are almost the same.Concerning LoadLin, I will insist once again: LoadLin does not reboot the machine when run. To determine the truth of this, download LoopLinux from http://www.tux.org/pub/people/kent-robotti/index.html and try it for yourself. You're lying when you claim that a reboot occurs. It doesn't.Returning to the point of the thread... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You still have not disproved anything I put forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you haven't put anything forward to support your claim that Win3x isn't an OS.All you've done is intoxicate about how Win3x is booted (via DOS), which is clearly an insufficient counter-argument, because it's clear to everyone but you that an OS isn't defined by its booting mechanism. You have yet to produce a single solid point to prove that Win3x isn't an OS, and you've covered yourself in bullshit repeatedly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My point was that you just write software. You're not the one operating, maintaining, implementing and supporting it everyday on different and multiple hardware/software configurations. Somebody else is. You can have all your theories and stuff, but if it doesn't work as advertized, then it just doesn't work as claimed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is too funny. You know how to install Windows 95 from a CD, so you're the OS expert, huh? I hate to be classist, but I've never met a sysadmin who had a clue, and you're no exception to that rule. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since you're the Win-app expert, you tell me if your Win3x/Win9x PC boots and be used the same way without the DOS system-files from any current directories existing. Shift all you want. You're the one who claimed that Win3x is an OS, not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've provided a number of reasons why I think Win3x is an OS. You have provided nothing but intoxication, just like everytime you argue with anybody. The burden of proof is on you and those who claim Win3x isn't an OS.Edit: Fix tag.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited February 06, 2000).]

Victim12 · Feb 6, 2000

Hi IMarshal, I'm noticed your list of a few reasons about "Win3x" and I think Java hits quite a few of these things. Java has APIs, its own executable format, development tools, its own memory management and IO routines, user interface, many apps written for it... if I knew more about Java I might be able to comment more about this stuff.One interesting comment I read on Bjarne Stroustrup's web page (the C++ guy) was "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform." I never really thought about it like that View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sigsegv · Feb 6, 2000

Ummm... I'm bored out of my mind.. I guess I'll throw in my $0.02...Alright what is this argument is all about? What to consider an OS and what NOT to consider an OS? I am really having hard time trying to understand the point of this? But anyway....What is an OS? I think we should set ourselves to define what is an OS and what is NOT an OS. And why does it matter for something to be an OS or NOT.I really nave no idea about how to define an OS, does anyone else? are there any official docs saying what is an OS and what is NOT?If there isn't a clear cut definition of what an OS is lets try to come up with one before we go off screaming wether Win3.X/9X/NT/Linux are OSes. What we are talking about are levels of abstraction.... on the basic level we have what? the CPU? then we have what? the os loader? then the kernel? some api layer? and more api layers? Blah............Win3.1 had enough uniqness from DOS to be considered an OS in my opinion. It had it's own API to do just about everything, (i really hope we don't get into API are wrappers for kernel functions or something of that sort....

)The Win16 API was somewhat limited by DOS (anyone remember FAR, NEAR addresses?) or maybe was the the cpus it was supposed to run on (nostalgia... 80286), but still its API was a pretty large and rich set of functions that provided a complete environment for programs to run wihtout knowing about DOS at all. At its core some of Win3.Xs functionality fell back on DOS, but still it had a kernel (albiet a pathetic one) and many other things that would qualify it as an OS. Win9Xes are OSes no matter what BS is claimed. Yeah they use DOS as a loader, but at heart they have their own unique kernels that can work without DOS with very little if any modification, Microsoft spent a lot of time to make Win9X kernels be compatible with DOS because unlike the fantasy multicolored apple universe real bussiness care a lot COMPLETE backwords compatibility, at least at the market win9xes were targeted at. WinNT/2000 is an OS, no point at trying to provide examples.Linux is an OS, no point at providing examples....X is NOT an OS (X==XWindows), X is more commonly called a GRAPHICS SERVER, or X SERVER. Unlike DOS, unixes from the start were what microsoft wants WinNT to be (and in some cases accomplished it VERY WELL I MIGHT ADD, in others failed miserably).In any case, X provides a common graphical/windowing API for unixes. Unix programs are always the same in format (limited to unix version/cpu type/libc version) and just about anything else wether they need X or NOT, it is just a matter of libraries they were linked to. QT or GTK are abstraction libraries for functionality and can be compiled on just about anything really (I'm still freaked out at seeing the Win32 GIMP). DOS an OS

........ heh.... Win3.1 could run without dos with some modification, not far from being an OS Win9X can run without DOS with very little modification I think (write a loader)........ Win9X are OSes WinNT doesn't run DOS, and is an OS Win2000 (look above) Linux (look above) X IS NOT AN OS, couldn't run without a kernel to do it's low level work. [This message has been edited by nullint (edited February 06, 2000).]

treatment · Feb 6, 2000

We gonna try to go deep this time. Man, no coffee yet fer me.IMarshal,What is int 21h? --treatment--

Zer · Feb 6, 2000

While I could be wrong, isn't int21h typically used to make DOS API extensions and such, and hooked into by a lot of virii? I'll throw in my 2 cents and ask you, what exactly does it have any relevance to this argument about? Win16 programs do not use interrupts to call API calls. The Win16 header tells the operating system where within the program far pointers need to be placed for certain calls and Windows does that. Ditto with Win32, except there's no distinction between near and far. Win16 programs DO NOT use DOS interrupt calls. Win16 programs DO NOT use DOS. They use Windows.

Is Windows 3.xx an OS or a GUI for DOS?

Ars Legatus Legionis

Senator

Ars Praetorian

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Praetorian

Ars Praetorian

Well-known member

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Centurion

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

nproxy.org