ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (12/22/90)
kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) writes: >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New >York Times) show operating system market share as: >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 Is the New York Times trying to outdo PC Magazine in the propagation of mis-information? Windows is not an operating system. It is a proprietary windowing environment which runs *under* DOS. (Follow-ups directed to c.s.ibm.pc.misc...) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) (12/24/90)
In article <4033@dah.sub.org> ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) writes: | kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) writes: | | >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In | >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New | >York Times) show operating system market share as: | | >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 | >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 | >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 | >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 | | | Is the New York Times trying to outdo PC Magazine in the propagation | of mis-information? Windows is not an operating system. It is a | proprietary windowing environment which runs *under* DOS. Well Ed, I beg to differ. You are correct in that Windows is a proprietary windowing system, but I don't agree with the statement that Windows runs under DOS. Windows actually extends DOS. And Windows provides a very large number of OS services such as non-preemptive multi-tasking and inter-task communications. It therefore qualifies, in my opinion, as an operating system. I will agree, of course, that it is pretty kludgy and that OS/2 and UNIX are examples of real OS's as compared to Windows, but I don't think its fair to crap all over Windows just because it happens to have DOS as its heritage. -- Kim Letkeman kim@software.mitel.com uunet!mitel!spock!kim
cos@twiki.PDX.COM (Charles Sauls) (12/26/90)
> And Windows provides a very large number of OS services such as > non-preemptive multi-tasking and inter-task communications. It > therefore qualifies, in my opinion, as an operating system. > > I will agree, of course, that it is pretty kludgy and that OS/2 and > UNIX are examples of real OS's as compared to Windows, but I don't > think its fair to crap all over Windows just because it happens to > have DOS as its heritage. Windows is not an OS in my opinion because it is not the first thing to load up on the computer. MS-DOS has IBMBIO.COM, IBMDOS.COM, and COMMAND.COM, but Windows does not have any files like that so you can use it as an operating system. In my opinion, it is a PROGRAM, not an OS.
mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) (12/26/90)
In article <H5yqu1w163w@twiki.PDX.COM>, cos@twiki.PDX.COM (Charles Sauls) writes:
%% Windows is not an OS in my opinion because it is not the first thing to
%% load up on the computer. MS-DOS has IBMBIO.COM, IBMDOS.COM, and
%% COMMAND.COM, but Windows does not have any files like that so you can use
%% it as an operating system. In my opinion, it is a PROGRAM, not an OS.
Wrong! :-) MS-DOS has IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM.
IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM are for PC-DOS.
MS-DOS is Windows' boot and disk bios.
--
Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74
Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEXsilver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (12/26/90)
In article <H5yqu1w163w@twiki.PDX.COM> cos@twiki.PDX.COM (Charles Sauls) writes:
$ Windows is not an OS in my opinion because it is not the first thing to
$load up on the computer. MS-DOS has IBMBIO.COM, IBMDOS.COM, and
$COMMAND.COM, but Windows does not have any files like that so you can use
$it as an operating system. In my opinion, it is a PROGRAM, not an OS.
Novell NetWare 286 (at least, the SFT variety), then, is an OS since
it has its own boot sector and loads as soon as the POST has finished.
So far, so good. But you're telling me that NetWare 386 isn't an OS, since
a NetWare 386 server boots under DOS, then runs the Novell server program.
Sorry, I can't buy that.
--
__ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always
(__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching
__) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for
_____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTFschuster@panix.uucp (Michael Schuster) (12/27/90)
In article <7366@chorus.fr> mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) writes: >Wrong! :-) MS-DOS has IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM. >IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM are for PC-DOS. Wrong again. The names of the MS-DOS hidden files seem to vary among OEM's. Some use IO.SYS and MSDOS>SYS; others, perhaps for aping IBM more completely, use IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM. Take a look, for instance, at EPSON MS-DOS; they use the IBM conventions for hidden files. -- l\ /l ' _ Mike Schuster ...!cmcl2!panix!schuster l \/ l l l/ (_ NY Public Access CIS:70346,1745 l l l l\ (_ UNIX Systems MCI Mail,GEnie:MSCHUSTER
alan@km4ba.UUCP (Alan Barrow) (12/27/90)
cos@twiki.PDX.COM (Charles Sauls) writes: stuff deleted.... > Windows is not an OS in my opinion because it is not the first thing to >load up on the computer. MS-DOS has IBMBIO.COM, IBMDOS.COM, and >COMMAND.COM, but Windows does not have any files like that so you can use >it as an operating system. In my opinion, it is a PROGRAM, not an OS. It's a dessert topping! No! It's a floor polish! Relax.... (Beaming face here) New Dos5.0windows is a dessert topping and a floor polish!!! :-> In my opinion, Win3.0 is a much needed extension to make DOS more than a program loader. (deskview and others may do the same. I use windows.) I view IBM???.* as barely more than firmware extensions, maybe a loader. Command.com as a kernel/shell???? Naahh! Between MKS tools & windows I skip the braindead command.com phase entirely. (I think it still may have to be in the root dir, to keep the boot from squawking.) With ram & hard-disks as cheap as they are now, the extra resources do not bother me. ($40/MB for RAM SIPs, and $300+ for 80 MB) Now if dos was an real OP-SYS, would TSR's and RAM-CRAM ever been an issue? I think not. They would not have been needed. This all reminds me of a humorous ad I saw. Supposedly in the yr 2000, it was for the new IUYHJSDLUYGA card, with 2E128 x 2E96 resolution, and 2E64 colors. It was of course completely CGA, EGA, VGA compatable, and would work with DOS1.0 on a 4.77 Mhz 8088. Oh well, off the soapbox... :-> have fun! Alan Barrow
mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) (12/27/90)
In article <1990Dec26.175746.24208@panix.uucp>, schuster@panix.uucp (Michael Schuster) writes: %% In article <7366@chorus.fr> mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) writes: %% >Wrong! :-) MS-DOS has IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM. %% >IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM are for PC-DOS. %% %% Wrong again. The names of the MS-DOS hidden files seem to vary among OEM's. %% Some use IO.SYS and MSDOS>SYS; others, perhaps for aping IBM more completely, %% use IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM. Take a look, for instance, at EPSON MS-DOS; %% they use the IBM conventions for hidden files. I know this. That's why I've put the smiley. In fact, on most DOS I have used there were IBM*.COM files, although only MicroSoft was mentionned in the copyrights besides the OEM. I have once found a program, named PCLAN.COM (on a Toshiba) which only purpose (after a disassembly) was to create those IBM*.COM files in the root directory of the A disk. But IBM PC-LAN program doesn't need to see those files to run, as I have check later. Could some programs be allergical to non IBM*.COM hidden files? The general question is how is an OEM DOS version eleborated. Which part is doing this? Who is choosing the names and the code repartition between IBMBIO/IO and IBMDOS.COM/MSDOS.SYS (IO.SYS is much smaller than IBMBIO, MSDOS.SYS much bigger than IBMDOS.COM)? And the last but not the least, how much does it cost for an OEM to have "it's own" DOS? -- Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74 Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEX
alan@km4ba.UUCP (Alan Barrow) (12/28/90)
alan@km4ba.UUCP (Alan Barrow) writes: stuff deleted.... >It's a dessert topping! >No! It's a floor polish! New MS-DOS is a desert! No! it's a dessert! Relax! New MS-DOS is a desert & a dessert! :-) (I never could remember which one was correct) It is bad to look the next morning and wonder if you spelled something correctly in a post you made in the middle of the night. If only spell would give you usage as well. :-) Have fun! Alan Barrow
jcb@frisbee.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) (01/03/91)
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) writes: kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) writes: >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New >York Times) show operating system market share as: >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 Is the New York Times trying to outdo PC Magazine in the propagation of mis-information? Windows is not an operating system. It is a proprietary windowing environment which runs *under* DOS. I got no clue how this subject matter is under this heading... but the same information, or mis-information if you chose to call it, is in the current Unix-World. And it's in Pie chart format! So like it or not Windows and DOS aren't being portrayed as overlapping... -Jim Becker -- -- Jim Becker / jcb%frisbee@sun.com / Sun Microsystems