From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:09:38 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Again, Fred, you seem to like to argue semantics.  If you don't think
>the the BIOS is part of DOS, boot up DOS, and pull out your BIOS and try
>to get *any* DOS utility to work.  Can't do it, can you?

That still doesn't mean the BIOS is part of DOS. It just means DOS
uses the BIOS, as does it use the microprogram of a 80x86.
Still the 80x86 is not part of DOS, but part of the DOS architecture.
Call it a semantic difference  of opinion if you like.

>>
>>Let's see what we can prove here with this.  Ok, if it is a given that
>>the BIOS is part of DOS (because it uses it), then it follows that the
>>BIOS is part of OS/2 (because it will use it if it doesn't find a
>>specialized hardware driver for a piece of hardware).  That makes DOS
>>and OS/2 the same thing (via the reasoning that things made of the
>>same bits are the same things).  Yes, very silly and violates some
>>logical rules.  So does the contention that the BIOS is part of DOS
>>and your attempt now to 'deny' what you said.

>No.  DNA is part of *me*, DNA is also a part of you.  It doesn't mean that
>you and I are the same--because all the other layers above make us

Lets nit pick. Your DNA is not part of me and my DNA is not part of
you, if it was I'd be you and you'd be me :-)

>different (at least I would hope so, God forbid if I'm anything like you! :)
>For OS/2, at least, the relationship is less clear--because it only uses
>the BIOS to boot from (does it need a BIOS to run a DOS window?). 

>The thought of "being a part of" only sounds silly if you idiotically try
>to "partition" a particular piece of software instead of viewing the 
>entire system.  My business makes use of computer distributors... this does
>not mean my business if a part of a particular computer distributor
>(or vice versa) but that both agencies are PART of the SAME DISTRIBUTION
>SYSTEM.

And so, the DOS uses the BIOS which makes them both a part of the saem
computer system, but the BIOS is not part of DOS as isn't your distributor
part of your business.


>Likewise, although a BIOS can be written, developed, and tested by one
>agency--and the OS software is written, developed, marketed, etc. by another
>agency--when the OS is running on top of the BIOS, they are part of the
>same operating SYSTEM.  Likewise the hardware/operating system/application
>are all part of the Computer SYSTEM.  If dBASE III Plus decides to bypass
>DOS to make a video call--it doesn't mean that dBASE III Plus is not
>a DOS application.

>Like always, you and I are arguing semantics.


>>
>>So, which has the 'better' BIOS; DOS or OS/2.  They are identical, but
>>one of them is better if you go by the way Joe measures 'better'.

>The BIOS is the same no matter what.  The foundation design for two
>homes can be identical too (same concrete, same thickness, same layout), but
>the homes that sit on top of them could be vastly different.  If you think
>that having the same foundation (regardless of how that foundation is used)
>makes two software packages identical, then you are even more silly than
>this entire thread.  :)

>>
>>-- 
>>"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.

>Joe.

>My opinions, all of it.


-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8573 comp.os.os2.misc:36970