From: v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 wasn't ( was Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov2.210858.3416@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>In <1cuva5INNio7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> 
> 
>>In a previous article, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) says:
> 
>>>Let's turn it around:  For the last twenty years, the definition of an
>>>operating system has basically been unchanged (BTW, the academic definition
>>>doesn't quite say what an OS is, just what an OS does--and MS Windows *does*
>>>it all... with frequent calls to DOS filesystem of course).  So, in your
>>>own words "I guess that if somebody tells us something is NOT an OS for
>>>a long enough time and often enough then many people may be (incorrectly)
>>>convinced to believe it. "
> 
> 
>>But if windows 3.0 was an operating enviroment, why should windows 3.1
>>become an operating system, when it isn't all that different for
>>most people?
> 
>If you can give me a technical definition of 'operating environment'
>that doesn't include the operating system, I'd be perfectly willing to
>concede the point.  

This is a bothersome argument, because it seems like no one can really win.
There are two very significant problems here, the first is whether or not
MS actually intended their definition of operating system to encompass
the cononical term "operating system", and the second concerns what exactly
the cononical term "operating system" represents.

If you think about it, maybe MS only intended to represent MS Windows as
an 'operating system' that everyone could use and everyone could operate in.
In other words, MS Windows serves as an environment to work in; therefor, it
is an 'operating system' at the human level (not machine).

If we accepted Windows as an operating system from the traditional standpoint,
it certainly doesn't pass the test. As far as I'm concerned, unless you can
bootstrap your computer with it - it just isn't an os. If you think about,
most major software packages are so extensively complicated that they
evolve a library of special commands comperable to all the Windows kernels
(GDI, USER, etc...). Basically, when you can get things done via these
existing API's, you will create the most efficient software the platform
will allow (unless you know something about the origional kernels to the
contrary; for example, the early Windows COMx support was notorious
for not supporting much beyond 2400 baud).

I will grant Windows the fact that it employs some inherent multitasking
characteristics well beneath the surface, but they have evolved on top of
DOS just like the API. If we can give Windows the classification of operating
system, we can certainly give any major DOS software package a similar
classification.

I don't think we need to revise the definition of operating system, we just need
to understand that the primary purpose of an operating system is to boot
your computer. Anything it does beyond that is merely a benefit.

As a postscript, I thought I might note that OS/2 isn't truly a graphical
operating system. The fundamentals of OS/2 are all text based, the WPS
is loaded on top of OS/2 to give the user the convenience of a GUI. In other
words, the GUI itself should not necessarily be a consideration in this
matter whatsoever. 
==============================================================================
 Eric W. Sarjeant                    | "I am only too conscious that I have no
 sUnyaB                              |  claim to wisdom, great or small..."
 v053qpgh@ubvms.bitnet               |
 sarjeant@aol.com                    |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy