🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Thread View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
2 messages
2 total messages Started by ub... Sebastiaan Ubink Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00
Re: Win95 a TRUE OS? Help a newbie!
#3527
Author: ub... Sebastiaan Ubink
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00
83 lines
4414 bytes
In message <3umd7a$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> - mcr...@ix.netcom.com 
(Psychoboy) writes:
> 
> After reading and seeing so much on Windows 95...and planning to 
> definitely purchase it, I have only one, critical question.  
> 
> Is Microsoft Windows 95 a true, real operating system?
> 
> Now, of course, this question has many loose ends, so I'll try to 
> set the variables.  Now, a lot of people think Windows 3.xx is an 
> operating system.  Well, it isn't...for most people, MS-DOS is.  Windows 
> 3.xx is, in essence, just a shell that will run a WIDE variety of 
> programs.  But it in itself is a program...a program run by DOS, which is 
> the operating system.  Disk Operating System...without it, or enough of 

You can make a distinction to whether something is a user program or not. But 
in the end all are programs, MS-DOS just as well as OS\2 and MS-Windows. 
In this (my) view Windows is NOT a user program but, _suprise_ :-), a 
grafical user interface. (Not soley though, the 'Windows' package also 
includes certain user programs). 

> the necessary drivers, your computer will be completely useless.  There 
> are other OSs...DR-DOS is one, I think? But as of now, Windows 3.xx is 
> NOT an operating system.  You may go into it when you start up your

Yes it is, it is the GUI-part of the operating system. Remember that Windows 
applications are also useless without MS-Windows (or Win-OS/2) just like DOS 
programs are useless without DOS. 
 
> computer, but this is only because DOS uses the autoexec.bat file to load 
> it up.  If Windows 3.xx were a true OS, there would be no autoexec.bat or 

How it is started is not essential.

> config.sys files.  There may be files with the same name, or similar 
> files...but they would work for Windows 3.xx, not for DOS.  And, you 
> wouldn't be able to exit out of it.  Can you exit from DOS? Even if you 
> could...where would you go? Nowhere...it's impossible...the only feasible 
> place you'd end up is in your setup, in your ROM.  DOS controls your 
> computer...it pretty much IS your computer.  So with this said, is 

FORTUNATELY! MS-Dos is not _MY_ computer :-)

> Windows 95 a shell, or a real operating system? Is it loaded from DOS? Do 
> you exit from it, or is it a real OS...like a graphical DOS?  I am 

again, this is not essential. Windows 08/24/1995 provides for user 
applications, it is only partly a user application by itself. I don't know 
much about windows'95 (I have even never seen it yet) but you can be sure 
that the 'DOS' part is loaded before the GUI part, just as in OS/2.

> severely confused on this matter.  Where does DOS 7 come in? If Windows 
> 95 is a true OS, DOS 7 would be just a shell to run DOS programs, right?

The DOS part is a building block in the artitecture of the OS.
 
> Unless Windows 95 can run DOS programs some other way.  Please...someone 
> help me.  Thank you for any responses in advance.

Note that in OS/2 the same division between OS and GUI exists in the 
seperation between the OS/2 system and the presentation manager (work place 
shell). The latter is seperate from the OS. It also is only started from the 
config.sys. Generaly this division is seen as good design. E.g. it provides 
for the ability to use a completely differend GUI for your OS (JFTI, do there 
exist alternatives for WPS?). 

> 
> -- 
> Psych a Delic! mcr...@ix.netcom.com
> produced by Psychoboy
> Psychoboy, Psych a Delic, and this signature file are 
> copyrights of Michael Craig.  Any use or copy of the name or
> signature file by anyone or anything is ILLEGAL by U.S. Law.
> All Rights Reserved.
> 

------
sebastiaan ubink        ooo (   ) ooo
ub...@worldaccess.nl     ooo O O ooo
utrecht                    o( V )o
the netherlands             (   )
                             w-w
                         OEROEBOEROE/2
Re: Win95 a TRUE OS? Help a newbie!
#3523
Author: t... Tim Smith
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 00:00
23 lines
1718 bytes
[I'm setting followups to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, because this has
nothing to do with most of the groups it is on]

Sebastiaan Ubink <ub...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
>In message <3umd7a$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> - mcr...@ix.netcom.com 
>(Psychoboy) writes:
>> computer, but this is only because DOS uses the autoexec.bat file to load 
>> it up.  If Windows 3.xx were a true OS, there would be no autoexec.bat or 
>
>How it is started is not essential.

Finally, someone noticed this.  Whether or not something is a "true"
operating system is completely independent of how it loads.  For example,
if LILO had never been written, and so everyone had to start Linux from
DOS (with LOADLIN or BOOTLIN), Linux would still be an OS.  VAX/VMS was
an OS, even though it required a separate computer to boot (the original
VAX 11/780 contained an LSI-11 that ran the console and that handled
booting by poking the OS into the VAX's RAM).

To answer the question of whether or not Windows is an OS, we must look
at running Windows, not booting Windows.

--Tim Smith
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads