From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:16:11 GMT

Monroe.Thomas@ttlg.UUCP (Monroe Thomas) writes:

>EVL>Bollocks all, if Windows were to be an OS it'd be a bloody daft one.
>   >Ever hear of an OS you can quit and still have a functioning machine?!
>   >Windows IS a shell with a GUI,a large one though. The only reason
>   >Windows features the large amount of functionalism a lot of you
>   >take as proof for it to be an OS is because DOS is even less competent.
>   >Consider this, if DOS wasn't the farce it is but an advanced operating
>   >system like it should have been and Windows would be the GUI it is
>   >running on top of this DOS. This DOS would now feature functions for
>   >memory and resource management Windows would still have to offer them
>   >to its applications if only to pass them directly to DOS. Hence the
>   >current API is no proof at all of it being an OS. It is just another
>   >layer in a machines hierarchy. The fact that it must and can bypass
>   >DOS for functionality DOS doesn't provide is only proof of the
>   >incompetence of DOS.

>EVL>Well, this should prolong this thread for another few weeks :-)

>Yup...

>What you are arguing is nice in theory.  The fact is DOS can't handle
>resource management for Windows apps.  Thus Windows must do it.  Since
>Windows must do it, it is providing operating system services.  It
>does so by shutting DOS down, except for some file management.
>Thus, the postulation that Windows is 90% of an OS is essentially
>correct.

>It would be nice if DOS did indeed handle resource allocation for a
>multitasking environ.  Sadly it does not.  Thus, any GUI of Windows
>proportions must also provide OS services.  This is not wishful
>thinking.  This is the plain truth.  DESQview does the same on a much
>smaller scale.  DV might be called 30% of an OS.

>Nobody here is claiming Windows is a full fledged OS... it isn't since
>it doesn't meet all the requirements.  It meets about 90% of them
>tho'...

Right you are. But not a full fledged OS isn't an OS, like a child
can be nearly a full grown man, but isn't and at this point one's
point of view becomes essential, since the child will obviously
want to be considered a man but the man will obviously still treat
it as a child. Who is right is then only a matter of definition.
Still if we would go around calling everything that is 90% of
something to be that something the result would be silly. In fact,
you could then argue a man to be a woman since they are so much
a like except for some trivial differences we might as well not
bother to note those differences. See, silly right? So based on
this and on the fact that Windows meets x% (x != 100) of an OS's
requirements we should be able to agree that Windows is not an OS
and you may add, but comes close, if you like and I wont hate you
for that :-)

Erik

When I was scuba diving one day I nearly saw a rabbit,
I would have seen it if it had been there!

>-Monroe

> * OLX 2.2 * "These test scores look better," Tom remarked.

> * Origin: Through the Looking Glass (42:100/14)
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   linstee@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   |   I'll be back ...