From: cs139121@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Todd Kepus)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:33:57 GMT
Organization: California State University, Sacramento

In article <1992Nov4.201521.4630@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <kewsuLO00WB946OFFB@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>
>>strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>> 
>>> Ok. Now try this: if you want to know if MSDOS is an OS or not, 
>>> remove the boot sector from your harddisk, turn your computer
>>> off, and then try installing MSDOS, without reinstalling that boot
>>> sector.  Doesn't work either. 
>
>>What in the world is this supposed to prove? Of course something won't
>>work if you corrupt it. That's a novel def. of OS to me: An OS is only
>>an OS if it is able to boot with a corrputed boot sector. I guess
>>there are no OS'es ever made then.
>
>No, he's just applying the same silly logic that is being used to say
>that Windows isn't an OS STRICTLY BECAUSE IT ISN'T BOOTABLE BUT MUST
>BE LOADED BY DOS.
If this is a silly argument, then why doesn't Microsoft simply allow
Windows 3.1 to be boot by disk without the need for DOS.  I mean, it
seems to me that everybody that claims that WIN 3.1 is an operating
system states that it doesn't need DOS.  Well, if it doesn't need DOS,
then why does it still need it to boot?
>>> What's the problem? A MSDOS disk serves as a "WIN boot disk" very well.
>
>>Sure. Because msdos is an OS you boot to run so you can run your
>>favorite app, windows.
>
>Gee, I guess that makes the PROM monitor an OS I boot so I can run my
>favorite app, UNIX (MS-DOS, OS/2, etc.).
>
>>> Ok. Following that reasoning, my computer has a built-in operating
>>> system (it's called Phoenix BIOS, if I'm not mistaken). MSDOS or
>>> Windows are just UI shells on top of this "real" operating system.
>
>>Can you run and utilize your computer with just the BIOS? No, you need
>>to boot an OS, whether it be msdos, linux, whatever (but not windows;
>>you can't have the bios boot windows, you need an os in the middle).
>>So the BIOS is not an OS. You see, there are many different layers of
>>interface between the user and the hardware. Bootstrap and hardware
>>level support routines in ROM (the BIOS), an OS (msdos, linux, os/2,
>>etc), then an optional graphical interface (windows, X, etc) and then
>>your apps. While there can be some overlap in functionality, you can't
>>take any entity from one level perform on another level. Windows is
>>clearly not an OS, it's on level 3 of the above scale while OS's are
>>level 2.
>
>This is simply not correct.  This would make CMS on an IBM mainframe
>an 'application' -- it certainly won't boot without VM running.  It
>would also make ANYTHING running on top of a Mach microkernel
>(including OS/2) just an application.  Windows isn't just a GUI.  You
>should check out what is going on in the software (compare X to
>Windows, for example).
>
>-- 
>"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.