From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:04:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: Andy makes a living off of OS design and programming.  Only a fool
: would _NOT_ examine other operating systems, because by knowing how
: OTHER operating systems do things, one can decide how one wants, or
: does not want to do something, without having to try out everything as
: if you were the only person to ever design an OS.  Not looking at
: other OSes is like Motorola not examining new technology, and
: duplicating research funds to do things that have already been done.
: In OS design, like everywhere else, there's little point in
: duplicating the mistakes of others, and knowing a lot about other OSes
: helps avoid that.
:

Agreed, but how much can you gather from just observing something for which
you don't have source code or even a description of the internals?

:
: That's different than an app programmer thinking he knows what goes
: into an OS better than an OS programmer, isn't it?  After all, in the
: end, the app programmer deals with the OS through the API, it's the OS
: designer that has to work with the internals.
:

Excuse me, I never said that I know better than an OS developer how to
develop an OS.  What I did say was that the features that go into an OS
are determined by the market and the type of applications the OS is expected
to run.  For example, if the OS is designed to run a fixed set of time-
critical processes in an embedded system, adding VM would not only be
pointless, it would probably also be detrimental to the real-time nature
of the OS.  On the other hand, if the OS is expected to run on a desktop
system and support multiple modern (big) productivity apps, VM not only
makes sense, it becomes a necessity.  The point is that no OS feature
is inherently better than another; it depends on the market and even the
intended application.  The Amiga buffs seem to believe that their pre-emptive
multitasking is more important than Windows' VM or DIG, and that's just not
right.

:
: Lately, you're correct, I haven't.  And that code was a weak attempt
: at something I should have done a lot more research on.  Since then,
: people who know a lot better than I about Windows have posted, 'kay?
: So perhaps you should join me in ceasing to talk out of your backside,
: and look at what MICROSOFT is telling you about windows, looking at
: the API.  People have been posting places in Windows documentation to
: you where this says this and that says that, and all you can do is
: deny that what is right in front of your face is something other than
: your foot, waiting for your mouth to open.
:

Come on, Greg.  All that was pointed out is the fact that there is a
DOS3Call() function in the Windows API.  So?  Does that mean that Windows
applications have to use it?  I can tell you that none of mine do, and
they work just fine.  Does it mean that Windows is not an OS if it uses
DOS for file system access?  You tell me, but please provide a definition
of "OS" which disallows this.

:
: Greg
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+