🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-03-22 21:41, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:12:36 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-03-21 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>>>>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>>>
>>>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
>>>
>>> It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
>>> 9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
>>> here.
>>
>> No, even windows 3 was more than a graphical shell. Call it incomplete,
>> faulty, whatever. But certainly more than a graphical shell. It replaced
>> many if not most of the bios and dos calls with its own code, for instance.
> 
> Okay. But deprive it of MS-DOS and it won't work. Same today with the
> Gnome or KDE (or any other) desktop environment for Linux. If there is no
> Linux (or other OS) working below it can't work on its own.
> 

It would be correct to say "deprive it of MS-DOS and it won't boot",
which applies at least to version 3, not beyond, IMO. At least partially.

The case of Linux is very different: Windows replaced many of the bios
and msdos calls with their own that worked in a mode (was it real or
enhanced? I forgot) that allowed it to access the entire memory map
directly and other advantages.

Linux already replaces all the calls with their own system, that has all
features available. When it switches to graphical mode it doesn't change
cpu mode and doesn't replace functions: it uses them.

Windows 3 replaced the obsolete MsDOS beneath, but graphic Linux uses
the entire Linux system "beneath" as is.

So to speak, others may correct me in the terms :-)


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.