I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user. I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system, but there
is one thing that I am sure about. Windows 3.1 is not an OS! I mean,
when was the last time that you booted up without DOS? Can a computer
have two OS’s running on top of each other, when one of them is dependent
on the other? Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
a great GUI that I use every day, nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
our problems. I am just sick of hearing about Windows being an OS!
Do we know what an OS is? And to all you OS/2 users who forced this
stupid debate, go home until OS/2 2.0 runs on my 386 without 6 megs
of RAM!
Dan Quinlan (quin…@pollux.bucknell.edu)
(send flames to the same, if you must)
In article <12MAY199214245…@coral.bucknell.edu>, quin…@coral.bucknell.edu (QUINLAN, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
|> I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user. I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
|> I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
|> it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system, but there
|> is one thing that I am sure about. Windows 3.1 is not an OS! I mean,
|> when was the last time that you booted up without DOS? Can a computer
|> have two OS’s running on top of each other, when one of them is dependent
|> on the other? Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
|> a great GUI that I use every day, nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
|> our problems. I am just sick of hearing about Windows being an OS!
|> Do we know what an OS is? And to all you OS/2 users who forced this
|> stupid debate, go home until OS/2 2.0 runs on my 386 without 6 megs
|> of RAM!
|>
This is like saying that DOS isn’t really an OS because it needs a BIOS to
boot up. Wrong.
An operating systems is something that handles file management, task managment,
I/O management, and system resource management (memory, etc.) In the windows
environment these responsibilities are shared by the two components DOS and
WINDOWS. Consider it a modular operating system. If you only need the
minimal DOS functionality, that is all you need to buy.
In article <l109m6INN…@spim.mips.com> mpo…@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>An operating systems is something that handles file management, task managment,
>I/O management, and system resource management (memory, etc.) In the windows
>environment these responsibilities are shared by the two components DOS and
>WINDOWS. Consider it a modular operating system. If you only need the
>minimal DOS functionality, that is all you need to buy.
No, since DOS alone can handle the aforementinoed tasks, DOS qualifies as an
OS. But, sinece Windows CAN’T handle th aforementioned tasks by itself,
Windows is not a full OS.
tc
—
tc
===============================================================================
Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.misc: 12-May-92 Windows, an OS?
(not a pro.. by QUIN…@coral.bucknell.e
> I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user.
Me too!
> I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
> I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
> it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system,
I haven’t heard of any problems yet with OS/2 v.2.0… why not give it a
try? If you don’t like it get rid of it… what kind of system do you
have? You must have at least a 386… I’ve got a 386/25 with 4 megs
onboard… another four on the way in about two weeks
> but there
> is one thing that I am sure about. Windows 3.1 is not an OS! I mean,
> when was the last time that you booted up without DOS? Can a computer
> have two OS’s running on top of each other, when one of them is dependent
> on the other? Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
> a great GUI that I use every day,
Me too! I finally put my WIN.BAT line in my autoexec.bat… I would
never have done that with win 3.0… never… win 3.1 is a godsend and
ndw for win 2.0 is god…
> nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
> our problems. I am just sick of hearing about Windows being an OS!
> Do we know what an OS is? And to all you OS/2 users who forced this
> stupid debate, go home until OS/2 2.0 runs on my 386 without 6 megs
> of RAM!
Well there you have it… you do have a 386 and 6 megs… big deal… go
for 8… i am… max it out… 4 megs aint sheet and it took me along
time to figure that out… many programs like dr dos 6.0 and win 3.1 and
qemm taught me the necessities of memory… the more the better… look
at unix… 32 megs is crammed… Windows is definitely NOT an OS…
Microsoft would like you to believe it is… and perhaps finally it will
be with NT… But damn if it ain’t the best shell program available and
with all the bugs worked out… its the best thing going… I like it
but I also want to see what OS/2 is all about… I wrote IBM a major
letter… sent it to the chairman of the board… telling them that they
need a killer app to go along with their platform… IBM thinks the OS/2
will sell itself… I told them they’d be chewing Microsoft’s dust if
they kept that attitude… still waiting on a response… do you know of
any internet mail site to ibm? heh… just a thought… cya…
Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.misc: 12-May-92 Windows, an OS?
Absolutely. by Michael Po…@gelato.mip
> An operating systems is something that handles file management, task
managment
> ,
> I/O management, and system resource management (memory, etc.) In the windows
> environment these responsibilities are shared by the two components DOS and
> WINDOWS. Consider it a modular operating system. If you only need the
> minimal DOS functionality, that is all you need to buy.
Naw… ya gotta remember the basic here… you can’t run win31 without
dos or something under it… its not an operating system but its on heel
of a shell… undisputable king of its kind…
In article <12MAY199214245…@coral.bucknell.edu> quin…@coral.bucknell.edu (QUINLAN, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
>I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user. I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
>I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
>it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system, but there
>is one thing that I am sure about. Windows 3.1 is not an OS! I mean,
>when was the last time that you booted up without DOS? Can a computer
>have two OS’s running on top of each other, when one of them is dependent
>on the other?
Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
>Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
>a great GUI that I use every day, nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
>our problems.
Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
*complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI. The
OS/2 WPS, Motif, and Open Look are GUIs. They rely on the underlying
OS to provide all the tasking, memory management, disk access
routines, etc., and just provide the user interface and messaging.
Perhaps the real question is whether MS-DOS is an OS, or merely a very
large monitor program.
>I am just sick of hearing about Windows being an OS!
But it seems to me that an argument can be made that it IS an OS. I’m
not sure why it MATTERS, though.
>Do we know what an OS is?
Well, I don’t know about ‘we’, but I do.
>And to all you OS/2 users who forced this
>stupid debate, go home until OS/2 2.0 runs on my 386 without 6 megs
>of RAM!
Well, I’d like to go home, since when I get there I’m going to be
installing OS/2 on my machine. :-)
–
"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.McC…@dseg.ti.com – I don’t speak for others and they don’t speak for me.
In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
>other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
>this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
>don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
>unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
>operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
Eunich was an *operating environment*, and *marketed* as such. It was
never claimed to be able to run standalone. There were many references
to VMS (the REAL operating system underneath).
>>Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
>>a great GUI that I use every day, nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
>>our problems.
>Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
>management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
>that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
>relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
>*complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
>certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI.
X windows does all that and lots more. Is X windows a GUI or an OS?
Spiros
–
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos c2…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics striantaf…@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904 [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Come on people, be civilized. comp.windows.ms has been moved and
subdivided because of its volume. Now, I’m finding myself wading
through more postings because of people cross posting to the
different subgroups. Please post to the proper groups and don’t
cross-post.
comp.os.ms-windows is here. Those who don’t think it belongs here,
Would it really
voice your opinion in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy. Microsoft did
state that Windows 3.1 is an Operating System
kill you OS/2 guys out there if Windows thinks it’s an OS?
If you don’t subscribe to this group, don’t read the postings and
don’t post any articles here, then IT DOESN’T EXIST.
If you are an OS/2 fan, and don’t use Windows, please press ‘u’ now.
–
————————————————— ____ PEPSI,
| John Jay G. Tanlimco | Univ. of British Columbia | / ____ Gotta
| tanli…@unixg.ubc.ca | Vancouver, B.C. CANADA | ____/____/ have
————————————————— / it!
In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
>management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
>that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
>relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
>*complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
>certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI. The
>OS/2 WPS, Motif, and Open Look are GUIs. They rely on the underlying
>OS to provide all the tasking, memory management, disk access
>routines, etc., and just provide the user interface and messaging.
>Perhaps the real question is whether MS-DOS is an OS, or merely a very
>large monitor program.
>>I am just sick of hearing about Windows being an OS!
>But it seems to me that an argument can be made that it IS an OS. I’m
>not sure why it MATTERS, though.
>>Do we know what an OS is?
>Well, I don’t know about ‘we’, but I do.
>>And to all you OS/2 users who forced this
>>stupid debate, go home until OS/2 2.0 runs on my 386 without 6 megs
>>of RAM!
>Well, I’d like to go home, since when I get there I’m going to be
>installing OS/2 on my machine. :-)
Hmm… Just to muddy the water, is Desqview 386 an operating system?
JD
In article <1992May13.172710.1…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c2…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>X windows does all that and lots more. Is X windows a GUI or an OS?
Oh? I thought X used the underlying primitives of the OS to do all
that stuff (tasking, file management, memory management, etc.) and
just did the graphics management and messaging.
I think you better check your release notes and the sources. You’ll
find that it manages ITS OWN memory, but not the memory of
applications on the client. It also doesn’t do its own tasking, at
other than the messaging level. It also doesn’t access the file
system except through the OS primitives. For what is and is not a
part of the core X Window System, you might want to refer to a
document titled "X Window System Protocol".
It’s a GUI.
–
"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.McC…@dseg.ti.com – I don’t speak for others and they don’t speak for me.
> Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
> management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
> that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
> relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
> *complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
> certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI.
>X windows does all that and lots more. Is X windows a GUI or an OS?
Really? I’d like to know exactly which X window interface calls do
memory management. I’d also like to know which X window interface calls
do process/task management.
But I won’t hold my breath too long
Milan
In article <1992May13.172710.1…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c2…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
>>other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
>>this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
>>don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
>>unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
>>operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
>Eunich was an *operating environment*, and *marketed* as such. It was
>never claimed to be able to run standalone. There were many references
>to VMS (the REAL operating system underneath).
>>>Let`s not kid ourselves, Win 3.1 is not an OS, but it is
>>>a great GUI that I use every day, nor is OS/2.0 the answer to all of
>>>our problems.
>>Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
>>management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
>>that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
>>relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
>>*complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
>>certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI.
>X windows does all that and lots more. Is X windows a GUI or an OS?
>Spiros
Thank you. I’ve been pointing this out to the clueless Win 3.1 users who
believe they have an operating system, but I don’t think most of them have the
brains to use a UNIX based machine with X windows. If they did they would
realize that that Windows 3.1 is a GUI.
Doug
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
dpie…@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Doug Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992May13.172710.1…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c2…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>>>Windows is something beyond a GUI, since it does all its own memory
>>>management, tasking, etc. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is exactly
>>>that; it doesn’t include memory management and tasking, which it
>>>relies on the underlying OS for. Windows probably can’t be called a
>>>*complete* OS, since it doesn’t do its own file management, but it
>>>certainly includes too much to be categorized as a simple GUI.
>>X windows does all that and lots more. Is X windows a GUI or an OS?
> Thank you. I’ve been pointing this out to the clueless Win 3.1 users who
>believe they have an operating system, but I don’t think most of them have the
>brains to use a UNIX based machine with X windows. If they did they would
>realize that that Windows 3.1 is a GUI.
I think this is a pointless argument, but what the hell — I’m
procrastinating.
Let’s get some facts straight. UNIX is a multitasking operating
system. X sits there taking graphics calls from UNIX programs and
translating them into screen images. UNIX handles _all_ the
multitasking, memory management, file management, etc. As far as the
program is concerned, X is essentially a video driver.
MS Windows, as far as a program is concerned, handles: memory
management, multitasking, graphics, communications with peripherals —
everything, in fact, _except_ the very basic file system. Sure, it
actually handles many of these things with low-level DOS calls, but
DOS handles them through BIOS calls, so what’s the difference?
If you’re going to make comparisons, X is comparable to the Windows
video driver. In fact, since you can use different file systems with
UNIX (AFS, for example), UNIX handles the same things that Windows
does. Is UNIX an OS? Thought so.
Adam Elman
ael…@cs.stanford.edu
In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
>other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
>this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
>don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
>unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
>operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
Not to pop your bubble, but Ultrix (Unix for DEC machines) doesn’t
require VMS underneath. Maybe it once did, but not any more. Your
analogy fits better in the IBM world of s/370 mainframes:
The VM operating system is a manager which simply creates virtual
s/370 machines, which other operating systems run in. Each user gets
his own virtual machine, with it’s own OS. Most users run CMS, which
is the OS usually associated with VM, but a user could also be running
AIX (IBM Unix), MVS (IBM’s other mainframe OS), or another copy of VM,
itself.
This is a much better example of how an OS can be dependant on
another. While AIX and MVS don’t require another OS, CMS does,
indeed. As do some other VM-required OS’s which IBM sells to VM
installations.
—
|) David Charlap "I don’t even represent myself
/|_ dic5…@hertz.njit.edu sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
((|,)
~|~ Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
In article <13MAY199215312…@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdo…@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>Hmm… Just to muddy the water, is Desqview 386 an operating system?
I was under the impression that DesqView 386 is just DesqView with the
addition of QEMM386.
–
|) David Charlap "I don’t even represent myself
/|_ dic5…@hertz.njit.edu sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
((|,)
~|~ Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
In article <1992May14.150735.18…@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5…@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
>>other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
>>this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
>>don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
>>unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
>>operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
>Not to pop your bubble, but Ultrix (Unix for DEC machines) doesn’t
>require VMS underneath. Maybe it once did, but not any more. Your
>analogy fits better in the IBM world of s/370 mainframes:
Eunice and Ultrix are two different beasts. Ultrix (DEC’s UNIX) doesn’t
require VMS underneath. Eunice (I’m not sure if it’s still around either)
was made by Wollongong (I think), and it most definitely DID require VMS
running underneath.
—————————————————————————-
Lonny McMichael | You can do it your own way, if it’s
email: mcmic…@ponder.csci.unt.edu | done just how I say.
| Metallica, "Eye of the Beholder"
—————————————————————————-
In article <aelman.705833…@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> ael…@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman and many others) write:
>[Windows is/is not an operating system]
This question is not unlike the one about putting angels on the head of a pin
or whatnot.
Consider:
MINIX for the PC is a true self-booting OS (as we’d all agree).
MINIX for the Mac, which uses 90% of the same code, runs as a Mac application.
So is or is not MINIX an OS? For a MINIX app, it doesn’t care if it’s
running on either–both look like OSs to it. MINIX does process and memory
management either way. The only thing MINIX/Mac uses the Mac for is video
support and low-level HD stuff.
Now let’s look at what you get in that Win 3.1 box:
o Many applications. Clearly not the stuff of an OS, but then can it be
called UNIX if it’s lacking the zillions of neat utilities you
usually get?
o KERNEL.EXE or KRNL386.EXE. Hmmm… These don’t do graphics, or messaging,
or annything like that. Look here for memory management, task
management, device driver support, and things like that. Sounds
like OS stuff to me.
o DOSX.EXE Basically, a protected mode translator of many DOS
functions.
o GDI.EXE Basically, a graphical imaging driver.
o USER.EXE *This* is the GUI of Windows.
o Zillions of drivers.
The only thing missing, that would keep this from being a complete (in
the UNIX sense) operating system, is a file system. Even that’s a quibble,
since in modern OSs file systems are device drivers, too.
The only argument I’ve heard that it’s not an OS is that it runs on top of
DOS. 1) it doesn’t, any more than DOS run on top of the bootstrap loader.
2) So what? On the NeXT a bsd variant runs on top of Mach, and MINIX/Mac
runs on the Mac OS. If some software entity provides basic resource
management for applications, then it’s an operating system. Textbook
definition. Nothing in the definition prevents one OS from loading
on another, or being loaded by another, or not providing a file system.
Aaron Wallace
In article <Ue49Spy00WB9NJ6…@andrew.cmu.edu> Denise Pullen <dp…@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.misc: 12-May-92 Windows, an OS?
> Absolutely. by Michael Po…@gelato.mip
>> An operating systems is something that handles file management, task
>managment
>Naw… ya gotta remember the basic here… you can’t run win31 without
>dos or something under it… its not an operating system but its on heel
>of a shell… undisputable king of its kind…
FLAME ON ******
Is windows an os or not? Maybe its my personality, but I can’t stand
anal-retentive technoweenies arguing about stuff that has zero relivancy
to day to day computing. Kind of reminds me of the how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin arguements. Look I need Windows to run WFW and
WorksFW I could care less if its because Windows is an os, ov or a fried
green tomato. Take this argument to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy or alt.
religion.computer and leave the other ms-windows subgroups for real questions
and real answers about real day to day problems that people are having!
FLAME OFF *****
In article <1992May14.201827.24…@morrow.stanford.edu>,
aa…@leland.Stanford.EDU (Aaron Wallace) writes…
>Now let’s look at what you get in that Win 3.1 box:
>o Many applications. Clearly not the stuff of an OS, but then can it be
> called UNIX if it’s lacking the zillions of neat utilities you
> usually get?
>o Zillions of drivers.
Aren’t we exaggerating just a little bit here? _Write_ is about as close
to an application that I have come across? "Zillions" of drivers? There
are quite a few printer drivers, but with video drivers the user is on his
own unless he likes "vanilla". Also, define a "Zillion".
JD
In article <1992May14.150735.18…@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5…@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Well actually, yes, a computer can have two OS’s running on top of each
>>other with one of them dependent on the other. The first example of
>>this that springs to mind is Eunice, a sort of UNIX that runs (ran? I
>>don’t know if it’s still around or not) on top of VMS on VAXen. So
>>unless you have an argument that says that either UNIX or VMS isn’t an
>>operating system, it seems perfectly credible to me.
> Not to pop your bubble, but Ultrix (Unix for DEC machines) doesn’t
> require VMS underneath. Maybe it once did, but not any more.
How did Ultrix come into this discussion? I thought it was about
Eunice — you must not remember Eunice and have mistaken the name
for DEC’s flavor of Unix.
Eunice was a product of SRI and the Wollongong Group. Its only
connection with DEC was that it ran on top of VMS, like hundreds
of other third-party layered products. I would _hardly_ call it
an operating system though; it basically ran with a set of libraries
and programs that simulated a Unix-like environment by using VMS
system services. It was totally useless without VMS underneath.
The emulation was also, um, less than perfect (one reason for the
nickname Eunuchs, which was applied to it more often than to Unix
itself), and I don’t think it is marketed much any more.
Ultrix was, and is, an actual DEC product. As far as I know it has
_never_ required any other OS underneath it – it has always run on
the bare hardware. There _are_ some Unix-like environments for VMS
available from DEC — the DECshell and VMS/Posix. These are basically
competing products for things like Eunice. But they are no more the
same as Ultrix than VMS is.
> Your analogy fits better in the IBM world of s/370 mainframes:
> The VM operating system is a manager which simply creates virtual
> s/370 machines, which other operating systems run in. Each user gets
> his own virtual machine, with it’s own OS. Most users run CMS, which
> is the OS usually associated with VM, but a user could also be running
> AIX (IBM Unix), MVS (IBM’s other mainframe OS), or another copy of VM,
> itself.
> This is a much better example of how an OS can be dependant on
> another. While AIX and MVS don’t require another OS, CMS does,
> indeed. As do some other VM-required OS’s which IBM sells to VM
> installations.
Agreed, this is a better example. By stretching a bit you might
even include HASP as an OS that ran on top of OS/MVT (or should it
be the other way ’round? They _did_ have a rather odd symbiotic
relationship …). But VM and its friends are a much better example
of this kind of thing …
Bruce C. Wright
I assume that the collection of features provided by Windows is unchanged
by whether or not people are prepared to deem it an "operating system".
If this is the case, it would appear that the only reason for continued
debate on this point is that certain people get annoyed by what they perceive
to be incorrect usage of terms.
I have set the Followup line to reflect this. Please feel free to continue
the discussion there, if you genuinely think it necessary.
Ian
In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
In article <12MAY199214245…@coral.bucknell.edu> quin…@coral.bucknell.edu (QUINLAN, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
>I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user. I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
>I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
>it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system…
Actually, IBM does a have license to all future Windows code from
Microsoft, including 3.1 and NT. They ought to exploit this to get
3.1 support out the door in say, OS/2 2.1.
In article <ROBERTK.92May22111…@rkrajewski.lotus.com> robe…@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes:
>In article <1992May13.161454.26…@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc…@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In article <12MAY199214245…@coral.bucknell.edu> quin…@coral.bucknell.edu (QUINLAN, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
> >I am a die-hard Windows 3.1 user. I have no plans for upgrading (yes,
> >I would call it an upgrade!) to OS/2 because I am not convinced that
> >it has full 3.1 support nor do I have the necessary system…
>Actually, IBM does a have license to all future Windows code from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Microsoft, including 3.1 and NT. They ought to exploit this to get
>3.1 support out the door in say, OS/2 2.1.
Are you sure about this? In 2020, with Windows Super New Technology (SNT),
does IBM still get a license to the code? Anyway, 3.1 support is supposed
to be in OS/2 2.0 by June/July.
Mike Timbol
Computer Science Undergraduate (1 day)
University of California, Berkeley
In article <ROBERTK.92May22111…@rkrajewski.lotus.com> robe…@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes:
>Actually, IBM does a have license to all future Windows code from
>Microsoft, including 3.1 and NT. They ought to exploit this to get
>3.1 support out the door in say, OS/2 2.1.
I believe this is incorrect. IBM’s licensing of Windows code (and whatever
access Microsoft has to OS/2) is currently bound by the Joint
Development Agreement signed by both parties. One reason Microsoft has
been so eager to develop a DLL that would run 32 bit apps under 3.1 is
that such a thing isn’t covered by the JDA and hence IBM cannot have
access to it. Similarly IBM released the WorkPlace Shell with OS/2 2.0
despite the fact that it seems to have some bugs because it isn’t
covered by the JDA. Both parties, in other words, are trying to market
their respective products with "unique" and specific features not
covered by the JDA. I should point ou;that I picked this up from the
various OS/2 newsgroups and some magazine articles. I believe these
sources but someone who knows more than I do is welcome to correct me.
jls
—
jsum…@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
jsum…@ucs.indiana.edu
jsum…@iubacs.bitnet
Fromjsum…@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffery sumler):
> access to it. Similarly IBM released the WorkPlace Shell with OS/2 2.0
> despite the fact that it seems to have some bugs because it isn’t
> covered by the JDA.
What bugs are these? I am running OS/2 2.0 and I have no problems
with the Workplace shell. I think your reports of "bugs" are greatly
exaggerated.
I do know that if you installed the official OS/2 2.0 over a beta of
OS/2, then some bugs IN THE BETA left problems that affected the GA
release. However, installing over a DOS or OS/2 1.3 system provides no
problems.
- Kevin Lowey
—
OS/2 2.0 comes with DOS 5.0 and Windows. Windows comes with a disclaimer.
Any questions? – j…@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan Jose T. Noyles)