From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:19:21 GMT

In <1992Nov13.215301.24402@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.180457.12367@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Nov12.175649.10295@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Nov11.220017.5830@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov08.105045.907@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>>
>>>>The claim that the PC BIOS is part of DOS is just plain silly.  Besides
>>>>the things that Erik mentions, DOS has been adapted for machines that
>>>>do NOT use an IBM PC-compatible BIOS -- like the DEC Rainbow, for
>>>>example.  Programs that use only the DOS INT 2?h interrupts (where ? is
>>>>a number from 0-f) work just fine on such machines, thank you.
>>>>
>>>>The IBM PC BIOS is part of the _IBM PC_ architecture, not a part of
>>>>MS-DOS.  The version of MS-DOS that you're most familiar with just
>>>>happens to be adapted for the IBM-PC.
>>>>
>>>>Bruce C. Wright
>>
>>
>>>No.  You misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that the BIOS is just as
>>>much a part of DOS (in the abstraction called an "Operating System") just
>>>as much as the Network Layer is part of the Transport Layer (in the OSI
>>>model of a networking environment) because the Transport Layer can't
>>>*exist* without the Network Layer (at least and be runnable).
>>
>>No, Joe, he took you at what you said.  By the kind of thinking you
>>exhibit here, the Intel CPU is also 'part of DOS'; an equally silly
>>assertion to the one you made, by the way.

>Correct: it *is* silly to consider that a piece of hardware is part of a
>piece of software.  But I'm not making that assertion, it is still
>argued (in much erudite circles than ours) whether a ROM is hardware or
>software (or both).

It's also silly to consider DIFFERENT SOFTWARE as part of a piece of
software.  After all, the CPU contains microcode, does it not
(assuming it's not a RISC chip - which the Intel 8XX86 series is not)?
It is silly to say that the BIOS is part of DOS, just like it's silly
to say that DOS is part of WordPerfect.

>Yes, the BIOS is part of DOS--as much as the NE2000 driver is part of the 
>Novell NOS.  Ahhhh, here is a good analogy.  At home I have a Lantastic
>network operating system.  I also have (quite a few) Lantastic-aware programs
>that use NETBIOS calls.  I say that the Lantastic NOS is different than,
>say, the Netware NOS even though both use a layer called "NETBIOS."  And
>just because they are both built on a NETBIOS layer, doesn't mean that
>they are not Network operating systems.

Still silly.  But then, by your definitions, let me ask you a
question.  Which of those two has the best NETBIOS?  

>Does the actual Network Layer (redir.exe) have to duplicate every NETBIOS
>call?  Is it valid for the network OS system programmer to say "If they
>want to send a message, they can simply make a NETBIOS call instead of
>me having to write an identical API on this level"?

>Likewise, if *I* were writing DOS from scratch, I would say "Well, the
>console I/O is pretty much covered (cough,cough) by the BIOS--but what
>I really need is I/O that makes sense from a filesystem point of view
>(aka, CON:)."  Likewise, graphics is pretty much covered (albeit poorly)
>by the BIOS... an OS doesn't *need* to duplicate the functionality--if
>it *assumes* that the functionality will be there at a lower level (bad
>assumption).  In this case, I stand by what I said... on *my* system, at
>least, the BIOS is as much a part of DOS as the bootstrap loader, IBMIO.SYS,
>etc...

>Again, Fred, you seem to like to argue semantics.  

You think this is just a question of SEMANTICS?  Bwwawaaaahahahahaha.

>If you don't think
>the the BIOS is part of DOS, boot up DOS, and pull out your BIOS and try
>to get *any* DOS utility to work.  Can't do it, can you?

What an irrelevant and stupid example, Joe.  Gee, you don't think that
DOS is part of WordPerfect?  Remove DOS and try to get any WordPerfect
software to run.  Can't do it, can you?  Gee, you don't think the
computer is part of DOS?  Remove the computer and try to get DOS to
run.  Can't do it, can you?  You don't think the FUSE IN THE FRIGGING
WALL is part of DOS?  Remove it.  Can't get DOS to run, can you?

>>
>>Let's see what we can prove here with this.  Ok, if it is a given that
>>the BIOS is part of DOS (because it uses it), then it follows that the
>>BIOS is part of OS/2 (because it will use it if it doesn't find a
>>specialized hardware driver for a piece of hardware).  That makes DOS
>>and OS/2 the same thing (via the reasoning that things made of the
>>same bits are the same things).  Yes, very silly and violates some
>>logical rules.  So does the contention that the BIOS is part of DOS
>>and your attempt now to 'deny' what you said.

>No.  DNA is part of *me*, DNA is also a part of you.  It doesn't mean that
>you and I are the same--because all the other layers above make us
>different (at least I would hope so, God forbid if I'm anything like you! :)
>For OS/2, at least, the relationship is less clear--because it only uses
>the BIOS to boot from (does it need a BIOS to run a DOS window?). 

>The thought of "being a part of" only sounds silly if you idiotically try
>to "partition" a particular piece of software instead of viewing the 
>entire system.  My business makes use of computer distributors... this does
>not mean my business if a part of a particular computer distributor
>(or vice versa) but that both agencies are PART of the SAME DISTRIBUTION
>SYSTEM.

>Likewise, although a BIOS can be written, developed, and tested by one
>agency--and the OS software is written, developed, marketed, etc. by another
>agency--when the OS is running on top of the BIOS, they are part of the
>same operating SYSTEM.  Likewise the hardware/operating system/application
>are all part of the Computer SYSTEM.  If dBASE III Plus decides to bypass
>DOS to make a video call--it doesn't mean that dBASE III Plus is not
>a DOS application.

>Like always, you and I are arguing semantics.

No, like always, you are making up your own definitions and then
insisting they they are the 'right' ones.  They aren't.

>>
>>So, which has the 'better' BIOS; DOS or OS/2.  They are identical, but
>>one of them is better if you go by the way Joe measures 'better'.

>The BIOS is the same no matter what.  The foundation design for two
>homes can be identical too (same concrete, same thickness, same layout), but
>the homes that sit on top of them could be vastly different.  If you think
>that having the same foundation (regardless of how that foundation is used)
>makes two software packages identical, then you are even more silly than
>this entire thread.  :)

Yes, the BIOS *IS* the same, but by your definitions, one of DOS and
OS/2 must be 'better' because you can make more money with it.
Therefore, using your 'bent' definitions of 'best', the one you can
make the most money with must have the 'best' BIOS, even though they
are in fact identical.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy