From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:17:10 GMT
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Flying Cat, Inc.

In article <1993Jan8.194620.24437@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Andy Finkel (andy@cbmvax.commodore.com) wrote:
>:
>: Let's make this clear, Jerry.  You should now know that Windows
>: still uses the the NONREENTRANT MSDOS disk drivers.  
>:
>
>According to an MS employee who posted here earlier this week, FastDisk only
>assists the virtual memory implementation,
>: I thought that the whole basis for your arguments was that Windows
>: doesn't depend on MSDOS when Windows is in operation ?
>:
>
>If you recall, my argument was that Windows is an OS.  The statement in
>question was certainly *not* the basis for my argument; it was incidental.
>
>:
>: But since Windows apparently does depend on MSDOS...well, doesn't
>: that remove support for your previous line of argument ?
>:
>
>No.  *IF* the MS employee's article was factual, it invalidates one of my
>previous statements, but still does nothing to prove that Windows is not an
>OS.


But you now have to say that Windows _does_ depend of MSDOS, and is
not completely stand alone.

>
>:
>: BTW, Microsoft still refers to Windows as an "Operating Environment', as they
>: do on the disk labels I have here for Windows 3.1.
>:
>
>It says, "Operating System" on my Windows box.

Check your disk labels;  mine say 'Graphical Environment'.  Check
the Microsoft manual;  mine say 'graphical environment'.   (I didn't
keep the box, so I can't look there)

>
>:
>: Are you now saying that one must consider MSDOS a part of Windows
>: that should be considered when arguing whether or not Windows is
>: an operating system ?
>:
>
>No.  When I got my tape drive, for example, there was a UNIX driver in
>the box.  Must one consider that tape driver a part of UNIX?  Of course not.
>And DOS is not a part of Windows, as Windows only uses it as a (replaceable)
>disk driver.

Yes; one _does_ consider that tape driver a part of the operating
system.  It's certainly not an application program, right ?  It
talks to the hardware.  It sits on the device driver layer.  It is
managing a resource .  It installs as part of the OS.  Your programs talk 
to it just like they  talk to any other device driver.  If someone else
had installed it for you when setting up your machine, you would have
thought it a part of the OS.

So, yes, you must consider that tape driver a part of the Operating System.


>:
>: Also, very important:  How was it you were unaware that Windows
>: uses a DOS interrupts for disk operations ? You've been arguing
>: that Windows doesn't when Fastdisk is installed for months now;
>: How could you possibly take that position if you hadn't
>: checked ?
>:
>
>Of course I had checked.  The information I posted was gathered from
>what I read in several descriptions of FastDisk.  *IF* the MS employer
>who posted here was correct, those descriptions were wrong.  The point is
>that Windows supports real filesystem drivers, and in theory does not
>require DOS.  FastDisk's limitation is a compatibility issue; nothing more.

How did you check ?  Did you find documentation that says 'Windows uses
no calls from MSDOS' ?  Did you run a scan of all the interrupt vectors,
tracing the code they point to ?  To paraphrase yourself (in this
very thread) HOW DID YOU CHECK ?

>It doesn't change what Windows is -- an operating system.

And MSDOS is a part of that operating system, by the standard definitions
of the term 'operating system'.  It doesn't matter if Windows
uses it as just a device driver.  It doesn't matter if its to take
advantage of programs like 'Stacker'.  It doesn't even matter if
the concept offends you in some way.  The device drivers of an operating system
_are_ a part of that operating system.  

(and having a non-reentrant disk device driver seems a rather large
 price to pay for Stacker compatibility.)

Windows is certainly an OS;  as long as you don't exclude some of
its parts.  Wasn't it you, yourself who claims that its being
sold in two parts for 'marketing reasons' ?

By the way, Windows also seems to use the MSDOS 5C netbios interrupt.


>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |


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

"There are two kinds of fool.  One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.'
And one says, "This is new, and therefore better.'" - Dean Inge

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