From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: WIN 3.1 an OS?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:03:59 GMT

In <1992Nov5.071408.19764@csusac.csus.edu> cs139121@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Todd Kepus) writes:

>This goes out to Wolfgang, Brian, Fred, and any others who continue to
>debate whether or not WIN 3.1 is an operating system.

>First, there are 3 cases...

>1. Win 3.1 is not an operating system.

>2. Win 3.1 is an operating system, but requires DOS to execute.

>3. Win 3.1 is an operating system, doesn't really need DOS at all, but
>Microsoft makes one 'need' it so they can continue to sell DOS to
>Windows users.

>Obviously, you probably wouldn't agree with case one, otherwise there
>would be no debate.  The second case is debatable, but will never be won
>because you won't convince most people on this thread that WIN 3.1 is an
>operating system AND it still needs DOS.

Why wouldn't I agree with case one?

>What do you think about the last case?  Is it below Microsoft?

File management still happens through DOS.  You need DOS.

>Anyways, lets assume that WIN 3.1 is an operating system.  Then we can
>compare it to OS/2.

>How do they compare?

That's what OUGHT to be going on here, instead of all this mindless
chatter about "Windows isn't an operating system".

>Well, OS/2 has preemptive multitasking, and can run almost all DOS
>applications quickly and efficiently.  For example, Borland C++ 3.1 runs
>perfectly under OS/2.  At the same time, one can be downloading from a
>BBS.  Personally, I do this quite often.

Me too.  Under both Windows and OS/2.  Borland C++ runs fine for me in
both environments as well.

>I think that these two features ( preemptive multitasking + DOS ) coupled
>to the fact that OS/2 is indeed a stable platform is what most users
>enjoy so much about OS/2.

I've found Windows 3.1 to be about equally stable when compared to
OS/2, but that's just my personal experience.  I haven't conducted any
real research into this.  And Windows 3.1 WILL preemptively multitask
Windows and DOS.  It just won't multitask Windows applications with
each other.  Note that in 'normal' use, this is exactly how OS/2
handles Windows and DOS.  All Windows applications in ONE slice, doing
cooperative multitasking and each DOS 'machine' in its own slice.
Just like Windows.

[Of course, you have the OPTION to keep each Windows application in
its own 'slice' under OS/2, but this will eat resources up like crazy.
This isn't an option under Windows, since MS removed the real mode
code.]

>Now a little about NT...

>That doesn't mean that if NT is indeed superior that I and other users
>won't switch.  However, what we (OS/2 users) consistently hear about NT
>is that it doesn't run DOS apps as well as OS/2, and it requires more
>than 8MB of memory.  For most users, more than 8MB is too expensive.  It
>was hard enough to afford 8MB.

>Lets accept the fact that WIN 3.1 is basically an operating system.  Now
>lets compare it to OS/2.  I think that would be more suited to this
>thread.  That's why they call it advocacy.

Exactly right.

-- 
"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.