From: Monroe.Thomas@ttlg.UUCP (Monroe Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:05:02 GMT

NA>>   Since DOS is not re-entrant, you have to play tricks with memory
  >>   addresses to make DOS think its the only thing running.  YOu can't
  >>   multitask any other way than preemptively, since DOS doesn't know when
  >>   to give up its time slice.
  >Exactly refer to diagrams (earlier posts) and this is an argument
  >against widows being an operating system.  I could explain if it is
  >needed, but the way windows sends hooks into terratories not it's it
  >breaking the rules, another quote from a conversation:

It has to, DOS simply cannot provide the services that are needed to
run Windows.  If DOS did have those resources, then we wouldn't see
Windows taking control over DOS.

NA>>   Windows programs, up until now, have been based on another paradigm of
  >>   mulktitasking, which has proven to be not as good as pre-emptive.
  >That was known a head of time.

Ahhh, but we have history playing a role here.  The 8086 was not
capable of efficient pre-emptive multitasking.  The original platform
for Windows included the 8086, up until version 3.0.  Since version
3.1 is basically just an API extension of 3.0 with bug-fixes, we can't
expect any changes in paradigm.  Now that 3.1 no longer runs on 8086
platforms, we are now prepared for Windows 4.0(?) which will multitask
Windows apps pre-emptivley as well.

  >Correct my knowledge about the specific implementation of windows is
  >limited to the literature available-  MS does not release the source
  >code, if there is anyone to blame it's MS.

I beg your pardon... but it isn't at all apparent that you have
availed yourself of the current literature.  If you had read the
literature about Windows, then you would have known about DLL's, and
that Windows can move memory around transparent to bothe Windows and
DOS apps being run under Windows.  I've never seen the source code for
Windows... yet reading the tech journals and publications gives me a
good idea as to what is going on.

  >>   to bind in the executable code in the actual executable itself.  You
  >>   can make reference to it in another file, and when you call that
  >>   function, Windows will use the code in the other file.  This
  >>   "other
  >This is very easy to do if you view windows as an application that can
  >dynamically link object libraries, and then obviously linking ten of
  >the same object libraries will leave only one copy in memory.
  >Windows, then, looks more like an advanced dos applciation, and then
  >my suggestion was that as a dos app it could very well implement
  >dynamic linking by taking overlays (which are a part of dos, built
  >in, this is a fact) make these fixes windows does and enhance this
  >mechanism so it looks nice and smooth.  At any event, let's discard
  >specifics and look at the things abstractly with concepts in mind and
  >not blends of concepts as the posts.

Not the same, and again you are revelaing your ignorance of Windows
technical matters.  What if you had 10 different programs that all
statically linked a comman library routine into there executables?  If
you have each of those 10 programs running, then there is a copy of
that library code in each one of those apps' memory space.  That means
there is 10 copies of the library  routine in memory.  Inefficient use
of system resources.  DLL's are different.  You can leave the library
routine OUT of the executable code.  Now you can run your ten
different applications, and they will access the library routine
through a DLL.  Only ONE copy of the code exists, and it is linked
dynamically, AT RUN TIME, to the applications that request it.

  >>You have done a nice job of theorizing about some of the concepts, but
  >>   frankly, you are wrong in a lot of your assumptions about what the
  >>   functional specs for Windows are.
  >I agree with you!!!

Good!

NA>I am having an extremely successful email conversation with
  >raymondc@microsoft.com I think everyone would be very interested to
  >join and observe, this is the sort of converstion I ment to have.
  >Therefore, the next post I will take all the emails I sent him and the
  >ones he replied and all the followups between us put them into a file
  >and post them.  Then we'll move this discussion to posting.

I would be interested to hear what raymond@microsoft.com thinks about
Windows in terms of an operating system.  I would bet that he would
lean toward the "90% of an OS" definition.

-Monroe

 * OLX 2.2 * "My stereo's half fixed," said Tom monotonously.

 * Origin: Through the Looking Glass (42:100/14)