From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:39:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.104838.28137@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>To Joe:
>
>You keep failing to grasp that the bootstrap loader is NOT part of the
>BIOS, it is a totally seperate function, ONLY in the same black little
>thingy. As long as you can't see that, your arguments about the BIOS
>being part of DOS lack credibility.
>
>Good luck
>Erik
>

The bootstrap loader uses the same "BIOS" low-level disk routines that
INT 13 uses (check the BIOS listing in the AT Technical reference manual).
So, the argument really isn't whether the bootstrap loader is part of the
BIOS (because at least *part* of it is)... but whether or not the mere
use of the BIOS during bootup by an operating system constitutes that
(at least in small part) the BIOS is part of the operating system.  After
suitable reflection, I think that it is not (hence, the BIOS is not part of
OS/2 unless OS/2 depends on the BIOS for other functions, such as a DOS 
window).

But, the BIOS routines are well integrated into DOS (At least DOS on *my* 
PC).  And DOS programmers and DOS programming books have accepted that
the BIOS INT functions are a valid API for DOS programs--so much so that
the BIOS can be considered *part* of DOS (by the OS definition by
D. Comer in _Operating System Design, a XINU approach_), if not de jure
then at the very least de facto.

TO recap this thread, the arguments therefore go like this:

    Windows is not an operating system.
    Sure it is, it performs all operating system functions in the
      textbook definition (cited _System Software_ by L. Beck)
    But it's built on top of DOS.
    So what?  DOS is simply another layer in the Windows operating system
       design (cited Beck, and, may I add, D. Comer  in _Operating
       System Design_ *insists* on a layered approach in operating system
       design).
    But even DOS is not an operating system.
    So people have been using a computer without an operating system for over
       15 years?
    But an OS should handle all hardware related interfaces.  It doesn't
       even do graphics.
    An OS doesn't have to handle all hardware (examples of specialized
       hardware that no OS handles out-of-the-box).  Besides the graphics
       routines are handled adequately (cough,cough) by the BIOS.  In
       this sense, the BIOS can be considered part of DOS (cites reference
       from D. Comer).  Hints that the BIOS may be part of OS/2 because
       (a) it uses the BIOS to boot (and may use the BIOS for DOS windows),
       but the minimal use of the BIOS routines in this respect makes such
       classification a grey area.
    But the BIOS is part of the PC architecture.
    Anything that is built on is an "architecture." (definition of
       architecture from Webster's Dictionary).  If one's PC development
       consists only of OS/2, then his PC Architecture includes OS/2.
       Besides, an operating system consists of a collection of software
       that performs OS functions (D. Comer again)... as long as the BIOS
       is considered *software* it could be considered part of the OS that uses
       it.
    But only the bootstrap loader is used by OS/2.  The loader is not part
       of the BIOS, it's in the same ROM, but it is separate.  If you can't
       get that through your head, your arguments about the BIOS being part
       of DOS lack credibility.
    The low level disk access routines are shared by the BIOS and loader 
       (cites appendix H. BIOS listing of _AT Technical reference manual_).
       Agrees that if OS/2 only uses the BIOS to boot, the BIOS is not part
       of OS/2 (but questions whether or not OS/2 uses the BIOS for a DOS
       window).

As you can see, the thread has carried far from the original question: is
Windows (plus DOS)  an operating system ?  But also note that only *one* 
side of the argument is presenting references and definitions

>You keep failing to grasp that the bootstrap loader is NOT part of the
>BIOS, it is a totally seperate function, ONLY in the same black little
>thingy. As long as you can't see that, your arguments about the BIOS
>being part of DOS lack credibility.

 

As long as people keep pulling definitions and concepts from a hat--without
citing references, their entire argument lacks credibility.


Just my opinion.

Joe.



Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8562 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2750