From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:12:19 GMT
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Flying Cat, Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.155302.27772@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Andy Finkel (andy@cbmvax.commodore.com) wrote:
>:
>: OK, lets.  What is your definition of a real time operating system,
>: and how does OS/2 either meet or not meet criteria ?
>:
>
>But why have this whole discussion again?  What's the point?  I've given
>textbook definitions here in the past, only to be called names and to be
>informed that textbooks don't always agree or speak the truth.

Hm, still don't want to post technical details.  Well, I only hope you
won't feel the need to chime in if real time operating systems are
discussed again.

(As I recall, your post of a textbook definition was of what an operating
 system is.  I wasn't necessarily asking for a textbook definition.  I was 
 asking for _your_ definition.  To participate in a discussion/argument
 of whether or not an operating system is real time, you need to have
 a workable definition.  Otherwise you can't contribute to the discussion,
 except in a negative manner).

>Andy, why can't you just admit to your biased point of view and stop
>pretending to be Mr. Information?

Since I actually know what I'm talking about, its easy to see
how you managed to get the impression that I'm Mr. Information.

>For someone who's offended by these things, you sure love doing them.

You know, you make a lot of bigoted statements:  

>I had a feeling you were just as insulting as the rest of the Amigoids,
>Andy.  Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

>Unfortunately, it seems to be the only thing that the typical Amigoid
>understands.  I thought you'd be different; I was wrong.

You seem to put people in groups, and judge them on the basis of their
group membership, as your statements (two recent ones above).   This is 
not a good tendency to have.


>: You don't seem to want to back up your claims.
>:
>
>Wrong.  I don't want to back up the claims that you ACCUSE me of making,
>but I'll gladly back up my own claims.


Well, for instance, in the portion of the article you edited out, you said 
OS/2 cannot talk to the hardware directly.  I posted how OS/2 can talk to
the hardware.  I invited you to back up your claim.  Strange, no comment ?

 
>: You just seem
>: to post disagreements when others post.  And you don't back up
>: your disagreements with actual technical details. 
>:
>
>Not true.  Remember when somebody here said that the 286 cannot multitask?
>I stated my views, and I backed them up with plenty of detail about 286
>operation. Look at the current thread about DOS emulators.  Peter was
>clearly wrong about what it takes to emulate x86 protected mode, and I
>proved that with lots of detail.  I always try to do these things, but
>what can I do when people like you choose to ignore it?  Ignoring it is
>one thing, but accusing me of neglecting to do it is another.

Well, I happen to have that thread.  Just in case, here it is again:
(and, just for fun, I include the currently final post in that thread,
even though you didn't make it).

-----------
>I believe you are wrong.  The emulators currently available are only capable
>of emulating Real Mode.  Windows 3.1, OS/2, and other OS's require Protected
>Mode.  I don't think that emulating Protected Mode is feasible.
>
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |

-----------
>Peter, it is YOU who needs to get informed.  There is no "flat" memory mode
>on the x86, although it can be simulated by using a single large segment.
>The point is that you have to emulate everything in order to have any
>off-the-shelf software run, including segmentation.  Plus, all of the x86's
>protection mechanisms make it not feasible IMHO.
>
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |

---------------------------
>In <1993Jan19.195658.29400@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) $
>>Protected Mode there's a lot more going on, you know.  For each memory access,
>>the CPU takes the segment register and uses it as an index into an array
>>of descriptor structures; it then adds the address (offset) to the segment
>>base (from the descriptor), checks for segment boundaries, compares the
>>privileges levels, marks access bits, etc., all before passing the address
>>through the paging mechanism!
>
:Think. Then read the 286/386/486 manuals. Think again.
:
:Ah... most of these operations are done when _loading_ the segment registers.
:A memory access adds a base address and checks against the limit. The whole
:protection and privilege stuff can be handled by using different tables for
:the segment values with no overhead.
:
:It gets slower when you use the 386/486 paging unit since then you have to
:indirect pages through a table and have to handle lots of descriptor bits.
:This _could_ be handled by a program that has control over the 680x0 MMU
:again with little overhead though.
:Regards,
:--
:Michael van Elst


Now, granted it has a lot more technical detail than your usual post.  But
was the detail correct, or misleading ?  You  mentioned correctly that there 
are always segments.  However, as for the rest of your statements ?
Are you going to respond to Mr. van Elst by citing a reference showing
your statement was correct and that his was incorrect ?

>: I also remember you making a statement
>: when someone posted claiming that the windows OS was a disorganized
>: mess something like the following:  'How would you know ?  Have
>: you seen the source code ?'
>:
>: Since I didn't save your posting (I didn't see the need back then)
>: I can't prove you said it.  If you wish to disclaim it now,
>: please do so.  Otherwise, I will explain what that statement indicates.
>:
>
>I won't disclaim it; I remember making that statement very well.  I was
>simply asking for proof, just like you are now.  When someone makes such
>a blatant statement, Andy, do you think that (A) we should blindly assume
>that it's true until someone disproves it, or (B) we should ask for proof
>before we believe it?  I don't know about you, but I strongly believe in (B),
>as it represents the scientific method.

The asking for proof was not the issue.  It was the specific proof
("seeing the source code") that you were requiring that is the issue.
You were not 'simply asking for proof'.  You were saying that the only way
to judge that Windows environment was a disorganized mess was to see
the source code.  There's a big difference between that, and asking for
proof.

Windows can also be evaluated by looking at the layering Windows, by 
looking at what is being hidden by the OS and what is not,
by disassembling Windows (beta versions of Windows came with
complete cv symbol tables), and so on.

FYI, the Windows SDK does contain source for two parts of the
USER module (DefWindowProc() and DefDlgProc() , the first of which
is a single function over 500 lines long.  The DDK comes with
source for a number of the drivers that come with Windows)


>Oops, Andy mounts the high horse again.  You act as if you respect all
>statements accurate and technical.  The truth is that you only respect all
>statements pro-Amiga.

Again, you see things through that chip on your shoulder.  Since I
like what's happening with the OS/2 32 bit API  (and, what's more
important know and understand what's happening with the 32 bit API)
I just can't accept that statement.  Since I actually do MSDOS programming
for palmtops, I just can't accept that statement.  Since I do Unix
programming, I just can't accept that statement.  Since I do Windows
programming, I just can't accept that statement.

If you think that's a high horse, you need to lift yourself out
of the hole you've dug yourself into.

>: I still want you to back up your Windows 3.1 doesn't use MSDOS statements.
>: I want to go to those very FASTDISK articles you mentioned seeing, and see 
>: just what they said.  I want to see what they said about how FASTDISK fits 
>: into the Windows 3.1 environment.
>:
>
>Sorry, I'm not one of those people who collects magazine back-issues.

And the dog ate them.   As the church lady would say "How con-veeeeen-ient".

>: Once again, I invite you to respond with verifiable technical
>: details to the issues you have opinions on.

>What's the point?  You'll just ignore any technical details I provide, and
>then accuse me of not posting them.

If you really believed that, you'd post the technical details anyway,
since it would let the rest of the net know that you actually know
what you're talking about.

That's the assumption I've been working on with you lately, anyway.  I had the
feeling that you'd decide not to respond to the technical challanges for _some_
reason.  And, since I posted technical details backing my claims
(that OS/2 applications can talk to the disk directly, that OS/2 
 applications can talk to the hardware directly, that Windows
 uses MSDOS for disk access and netbios) and you won't, other people reading
 the thread will get the idea.
 
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |

			andy
-- 
andy finkel		andy@cbmvax.commodore.com

"This isn't right.  This isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli, on a
colleague's physics paper presented to him for review.

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy