From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:19:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.105146.9265@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov18.105730.27496@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, like always, you are making up your own definitions and then
>>>>>insisting they they are the 'right' ones.  They aren't.
>>>
>>>>Gee, stop your idiotic blabbing--you are very quick to say that I make up
>>>>my own definitions, yet you never post what yours are.  OK, Mr. Wizard,
>>>>what is an Operating System?  What is a Computer System? What is
>>>>a System?  Answer or shut up (I'm tired of these uneducated, closed-minded
>>>>posts).  BTW.  Before you even try to blast me about what I mean by
>>>>"operating SYSTEM" <--- same emphasis as my previous post...
>>>
>>>>System  (sis-tem), n.  1.  An assemblage or combination of things or parts
>>>>forming a complex or unitary whole.
>>>
>>>>		       Random House College Dictionary.
>>>
>>>>Okay, Spassky, your move.
>>>
>>>Well, I'm not Spassky, but I'll move anyway. If you were to change the
>>>phrase "operating system" into "computer system" you're right. Cause
>
>>No, actually if you consider that no matter which textbook you reference--an
>>operating system is *software* that accomplishes x,y,z functions--then an
>>OS, being a "system" can be thought of as an assemblage of *software* that
>>forms a "complex or unitary whole" (implied: to perform the functions of
>>an OS).  Therefore an "operating system" only includes software (the drivers,
>>the APIs, etc.) whereas a "computer system" includes both hardware and 
>>software.
>
>>As I said, for DOS, the BIOS is definitely part of the "operating system."
>>Is it a part of OS/2?  Only to boot--unless it is used for something else,
>>such as a DOS VM window (which I am not certain it is).  Is the BIOS software?
>>As I stated before, lots of people argue if firmware is hardware or software.
>>If it is hardware, then the BIOS is NOT part of the operating system (but
>>part of the "computer system")--if it's software, then the BIOS can be 
>>considered part of DOS.  I, being more a code slinger than a solder
>>shooter, consider the BIOS software, and therefore part of the OS.
>
>So where does that leave the CPU? It's part software so is it
>partially part of the OS :-)
>
>>>that's what you appear to be referencing here. You seem to argue that
>>>the components that make the system work are part of that system. Well,
>>>that depends on what system you're considering. You say that the operating
>>>system is the collection of parts that let the apps use the hardware.
>
>>I say that an operating SYSTEM is a collection of *software* parts that let
>>the apps use the hardware (I am not trying to change the textbook definition
>>of an OS, all of which agree that an OS is software)....
>
>>>If so, you would have to include the hardware in that. Dos uses the
>>>BIOS and that makes it part of DOS you say, now I ask you, where does
>>>the D in DOS stand for? 
>
>>... so therefore I cannot include "hardware" in that--since THAT would
>>change the definition of an operating system.
>
>
>>>Or, early IBM machines had the Basic interpreter
>>>included in the BIOS, does that make Basic part of DOS? If it does,
>>>I have a deficient DOS cause I never had Basic on it. And what about
>
>>And if you were using those DOS utilities (BASIC and BASICA), yes you would
>>have a deficient DOS.  Now, of course, DOS doesn't depend on the BASIC
>>ROMs, so therefore the BASIC ROMs are no longer a part of DOS... as it's
>>running.
>
>>>the BIOS on the video card, or the harddisk controler? Are they all
>>>part of DOS. Clearly not. DOS uses them because they are there, as
>
>>Are drivers a part of OS/2?  The BIOS on a video card functions identically
>>to a software driver loaded from disk.
>
>So isn't the on-board BIOS? Doesn't it drive the parallel port, the serial
>port, the keyboard? Doesn't any BIOS (Basic Input Output System) drive
>the device it comes with? Like the VGA BIOS drives the video hardware?
>Like the on-board BIOS drives the hardware it comes with?
>If you answer this no, I cannot but think this is getting silly.
>
>
>>>it uses the microcode on the CPU. The Operating System nucleus is the
>>>first layer above the architecture it is built on (generally the hardware)
>
>>And again, we reach a semantical issue: is the BIOS software or hardware?
>
>It is irrelevant. It is piece of the architecture. No definition of
>architecture requires it to be either software or hardware.
>
>
>>>and the architecture DOS was built on is the IBM PC, a machine
>>>consisting of a 8086 CPU, several parts for the interrupt mechanism,
>>>an io controler, a data bus and a BIOS to provide an interface to the
>>>hardware then available.
>>>That is the architecture.
>
>>Then why does DOS work on AT&T BIOSless machines?  But the DOS applications that
>
>The same reason why Unix works on different platforms. Because it was
>implemented on such a machine. It just proves DOS doesn't need the BIOS
>doesn't it?
>
>>rely on techniques taught in the Waite Group's Programming MS-DOS book
>>break on such systems?
>
>Because the techniques fail maybe? Like because they depend on hardware
>specifics instead of letting DOS take care of that?
>Do I wonder why my assembly code for writing a filled square on the
>PC screen doesn't work on the SUNs or IBMs or DECs around here?
>Even though they support DOS emulation?
>
>
>>>DOS is a piece of software to be loaded from disk to provide an
>>>abstraction from the hardware so users can load applications, manipulate
>>>files and use the harware to their avail.
>>>That is the operating system called DOS.
>
>>Correct.  A good OS should insulate the programmer from the lower software 
>>layers.  But is it not still valid to design an OS that doesn't perform
>>such insulation--in other words, to make the BIOS API an inherent part of
>>DOS?
>
>No its not. It can be done, but it would be very silly. I would certainly
>not employ a person who would even think of doing such after having
>learned about operating systems.
>
>
>>>To seperate pieces, combined together being a useful computer system.
>
>>Or the software parts into an Operating System.  Semantics:  Is the BIOS
>>software or hardware?
>
>>>
>>>To say it once again, the BIOS is not part of DOS, is not part of OS2,
>>>is not part of Xenix, is not part of Linux, is not part of BSD386,
>>>is not part of ...
>
>>This is only true, again, if you do not consider the BIOS a piece of software.
>>There is the echo of another argument: several people have installed
>>OS/2 on various machines--and could not boot because of BIOS problems (yet,
>>may I point out that such "BIOS" problems do not exist on other operating
>>systems such as Windows+DOS or DOS).  There are two schools of thought:
>>(1)  The hardware is non-compliant (this is what most OS/2 advocates
>>assert).  or (2)  OS/2 still needs ironing out (this is what the trade rags
>>basically say).  Which is right?  Are incompatibility problems an issue with
>>the hardware or with the software?
>
>It is an architectural problem. I have to seperate yet another piece
>of code incorporated into the ROM in which the BIOS resides.
>Nowadays many, if not all BIOS makers, include code in their BIOS
>ROM to allow you to control the hardware. This is the piece of code
>that can cause problems for OS/2 or other systems because it doesn't
>setup the hardware correctly. It is not the actual BIOS, which is
>the piece of code that provides an interface to the keyboard, parallel
>port(s) and serial port(s), the timer and such.
>So, if the piece of code in the BIOS ROMs which isn't part of the BIOS
>doesn't set the hardware up properly, OS/2 might be in trouble, DOS
>might be in trouble or any other OS might be in trouble. OS/2 most
>likely will be because it so much depends on very strict timing, unlike
>DOS which probably won't even notice the difference.
>
>
>>>It is part of the PC architecture.
>>>
>>>
>
>>So is DOS, so is OS/2, so is Windows.  I believe (as I said before in a 
>
>I just broke my wooden shoe, this is getting to silly.
>
>>previous post) that the issue of the BIOS being a part of OS/2 is not
>>quite clear since OS/2 "uses" the BIOS only to boot (and I am uncertain if
>
>It does not need the BIOS to boot, it uses the bootstrap loader to
>do that. So its in the same ROM as the BIOS is, big deal. Can't you
>grasp what the BIOS is? Its the Basic Input Output System, not the
>bootstrap loader, nor the built-in hardware setup program.
>They only reside in the same ROM because that is efficient, not necessary.
>
>>OS/2 depends on the BIOS to perform DOS windows).  But the BIOS is 
>>definitely part of the DOS architecture--which is why DOS software breaks
>>if the BIOS is not very close to 100% PC compliant.
>
>It is the PC architecture. DOS doesn't break when the BIOS isn't
>even there, as you said yourself earlier about those AT&T BIOSless
>machines. The apps break because they bypass DOS. As will any app
>that relies on the characteristics of a system, instead of on the
>OS.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, the BIOS *IS* the same, but by your definitions, one of DOS and
>>>>>OS/2 must be 'better' because you can make more money with it.
>>>>>Therefore, using your 'bent' definitions of 'best', the one you can
>>>>>make the most money with must have the 'best' BIOS, even though they
>>>>>are in fact identical.
>>>
>>>>I have never said that one BIOS is better than another (gawd, do you need to
>>>>take reading lessons too? :)  I simply said that they are a foundation (or
>>>>at least in use by) standard PC operating systems; DOS uses the BIOS
>>>>extensively, OS/2 uses it to boot.  The argument hasn't been which OS has the
>>>>"best" BIOS--but rather, whether the BIOS can be thought of as part of an
>>>>operating system.  You must be thinking of another thread (or not thinking
>>>>at all)...  :-)
>>>
>>>I think you are getting confused by this BIOS thing.
>>>Every computer system needs some mechanism to start it. In general
>>>a computer system is build of the CPU, ROM, RAM and IO. The ROM
>>>contains the code to allow the system to load an operating system.
>>>On Disk Operating Systems, like MSDOS is, this generally means, a
>>>piece of code to access a disk which might contain further code
>>>to initialise the hardware and load the system. This is a very small
>>>piece of code.
>>>On the PC architecture this piece of code is pointed to by a pointer
>>>at FFFF:FFFC which, obviously, resides in ROM. Also the PC architecture
>>>provides a means of accessing the hardware through a Basic Input
>>>Output System, also in ROM. Now guess what, both of these pieces
>>>of software are in ROM, the same ROM in fact. On piece being the
>>>bootstrap loader, the other being the BIOS. Two seperate issues
>>>but since the bootstrap loader is only a small piece of code it
>>>is not mentioned and those one or two ROMs are just refered to as
>>>the BIOS, while it actully is the BIOS and the bootstrap loader.
>
>>Right.  But as I said, since OS/2 only uses the BIOS to boot, the 
>>classification isn't clear.  However, if it depends on the BIOS after it
>
>Again, it doesn't use the BIOS to boot.
>
>>boots, then the BIOS is part of OS/2.  There is a simple test for this,
>>of course, simply disable the select line on the BIOS ROM after OS/2
>>has booted--and if it still runs without fail, and OS/2 applications
>>don't break, then the BIOS is NOT part of OS/2.
>
>No proof at all. Disable the harddisk after you booted OS/2, if it
>still functions fine after that and OS/2 apps don't break, then
>the harddisk isn't part of OS/2. Well it is, cause my system doesn't
>function when I disable it.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Now why this effort to illustrate the architecture and point out
>>>such a minor generalisation? Well, when an operating system
>>>provides all the code necessary to access the hardware thereby
>>>replacing the BIOS code, it doesn't need the BIOS at all, not
>
>>But DOS doesn't replace the BIOS code... in fact, DOS programmers RELY on
>>the fact that the BIOS is there (since it is assumed it must be since they're
>>running DOS).  The issue is not quite as clear for OS/2.
>
>And why do they assume that? Right, because DOS was initially created
>for the PC architecture, of which the BIOS is a part. As soon as DOS
>is prted to other platforms though, those apps will break, and the
>apps that go through DOS to accomplish the same won't.
>
>>>even to bootstrap, even though the bootstrap loader is in the same
>>>package as the BIOS is so you can't just take *the* BIOS out.
>>>What you can do is copy the bootstrap code into another ROM, leave
>>>it empty otherwise and stick that in. The operating system will
>>>function just as merily, not even knowing the BIOS is gone or there
>>>even was such a thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Erik van Linstee
>>>Delft University of Technology
>>>Department of Computer Architecture
>>>(I don't normally include this, but just to prevent people
>>>from following up saying, well what do you know. So now you know)
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>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)
>
>

No comments, I just felt like adding another layer of ">"s.

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8697 comp.os.os2.misc:37461