From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:01:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.171921.25497@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>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.

Yes, I would rather it be a question of semantics than believe that your are
a blithering idiot. :)  I've referenced at least two DOS programming books
(not BIOS programming books, mind you) that implicitly shows doing graphics
and mode changes via INT 10.  Where are your references?

Yes, semantics.  I believe that a SYSTEM is made of its parts.  You believe
a SYSTEM can stand alone (semantically) without its underlying layers.  I
believe that it's valid for a DOS programmer to rely on the fact that a
"BIOS" is a callable layer for his application (although this is bad
programming practice for portability, it's still valid)--and I believe that
it's valid for an OS designer to say "hey, why should I write an API for
function X when the app programmer can always call the BIOS?" (again, poor
design practice, but valid nonetheless).

>
>>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?

Which is why Wordperfect is a *DOS* (and not a C64) application.  The other
examples are heresay: a fuse is hardware, the computer is hardware--the
BIOS (as I said before, but you're too busy looking for volatile material
to throw into a flamewar) is "somewhere between hardware and software."  
Better people than you and I are arguing whether or not firmware is hardware
or software: I prefer to think that the BIOS is more software than hardware.
Again, semantics.

>
>>>
>>>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.

Gee, stop your idiotic blabbing--you are very quick to say that I make up
my own definitions, yet you never post what yours are.  OK, Mr. Wizard,
what is an Operating System?  What is a Computer System? What is
a System?  Answer or shut up (I'm tired of these uneducated, closed-minded
posts).  BTW.  Before you even try to blast me about what I mean by
"operating SYSTEM" <--- same emphasis as my previous post...

System  (sis-tem), n.  1.  An assemblage or combination of things or parts
forming a complex or unitary whole.

		       Random House College Dictionary.

Okay, Spassky, your move.

>
>>>
>>>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.

I have never said that one BIOS is better than another (gawd, do you need to
take reading lessons too? :)  I simply said that they are a foundation (or
at least in use by) standard PC operating systems; DOS uses the BIOS
extensively, OS/2 uses it to boot.  The argument hasn't been which OS has the
"best" BIOS--but rather, whether the BIOS can be thought of as part of an
operating system.  You must be thinking of another thread (or not thinking
at all)...  :-)

>
>-- 
>"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.

Joe.

My opinions.