Windows 3.xx, OS or not?

[Kintaro]

I wanted to start a thread about this highly debated question that is nearly two decades old. Most people think of Windows 3.xx as an extension and shell to DOS much like Desqview/X. The latter is worth looking up as it is an impressive X server with its own multitasking and memory manager, including a DOS TSR of its own for XMS memory. This makes it very much like Windows 3.xx which is basically window manager with a virtual machine and protected memory, and even its own drivers for sound, printing and network. Though, it does work with DOS for disk operations.

Windows 3.xx has a virtual machine (this was what came with 2.00, being able to run a zillion DOS programs in x86 VMs), 3.1 added proper virtual memory for swap, and so on. When it is ran Windows 3.11 loads these up and essentially the virtual machine doesn't let a program talk to a packet driver for a network card, it talks to Windows. Microsoft gave it its own drivers, etc, though the Windows 3.xx filesystem did just pass shit to DOS, that was the only thing. Other than that, the protected memory mode for the Virtual Machine basically made DOS pretty much inaccessible.

Windows 3.xx was very much an operating system. Just one with the ability to exit and go back to DOS. Though, usually when you do this your TSRs have been murdered and need reloading. These are what I consider to be the things that make Windows 3.1 an operating system and nothing less: virtual memory, virtual machine, protected memory, its own drivers, and shared memory.

[Refalm]

Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.

[Aloone_Jonez]

, is this really worth discussing?

I admit that I probably don't know enough about this kind of thing to really say. I always thought of Windows 3.xx and even Windows 9x to be hybrid OSes both DOS and Windows. Can you run any non-NT based version of Windows without DOS? Indeed no so DOS is an essential component of Windows 3.xx/9x because it won't work without it.

[Kintaro]

, is this really worth discussing?

I admit that I probably don't know enough about this kind of thing to really say. I always thought of Windows 3.xx and even Windows 9x to be hybrid OSes both DOS and Windows. Can you run any non-NT based version of Windows without DOS? Indeed no so DOS is an essential component of Windows 3.xx/9x because it won't work without it.

Windows 9x doesn't even use DOS disk functions anymore. It's funny because back in the day old farts needlessly used MSCDEX and OEMCDROM when it didn't matter anymore. You can't really quit 9x and have anything left of the DOS instance that booted either.

Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.

Kind of, kind of not. It's a flavor of the GNU/Linux operating system and quite frankly the taste is far too sweet for me.

As someone quite nostalgic I find this an interesting question.

With the way "Apple System Software" left all the real work to programs (they talked directly to drivers, and my old mac classic with SS7 doesn't even multitask), and really just provided print and a GUI it was almost less of an OS than DOS. I'm not too well informed on the history of macs though.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Was DOS really an OS?

Lots of programs bypassed many DOS functions anyway, although most used it for file operations.

[piratePenguin]

dos distribution?

Who really gives a fuck. It's only a means of saying win3.x, win9x is the same old shit.

[Kintaro]

Was DOS really an OS?

Lots of programs bypassed many DOS functions anyway, although most used it for file operations.

This is pretty valid because DOS is less complex than the grub bootloader! Yeah, all DOS really is, is the most memory efficient FAT16 driver ever conceived. Though, DR-DOS has a multitasker for DOS that was quite handy when I could find use for it. Until you try getting two programs to use the packet driver, which wasn't designed for such black magic and reboots the computer in protest of the dark arts. There is even a HTTP webserver for DOS I have found out there with CGI support. I should get out a 386 from a cupboard and put it online.

dos distribution?

Who really gives a fuck. It's only a means of saying win3.x, win9x is the same old shit.

Windows 9x was about as based on DOS as Linux distributions loaded from DOS. There is a DOS program that loads the kernel, initrd, and then boots. This probably still bloody works when I think about it. There was even a driver (might still be there) in the kernel to extend FAT16 into having Unix permissions and long file names, and a whole distro called DOS4LINUX or something like that.

Windows 9x was terrible because it had no concept of user seperation. This bad habit was inherited by DOS as back then Microsoft treated its customers like retards and didn't want to change the way they think too much. This was hilarious because when I was like 8 years old the school got Windows 95 and even had a Windows 95 fileserver. All us kids had our own folder, but we could dump stuff in anyones. I drew a picture of a dong or something and put it in a grade 1s folder for her surprise.

The teacher however could identify what computer was used to put the file there, and what time it was. I know this because I denied the allegations until she shown me herself. Apparently what I did wasn't very nice, but I think this memory is grand because it is the first time I used a computer to intimidate to troll using the phallus. Yeah, I am off topic.

[Calum]

DOS was the OS (hence its name)

Windows was a GUI, with extensions.

Try running Windows 1, 2 or 3 without DOS, you can't. Why? Because you have no OS.

You can even run MS Windows on DR-DOS, as well as MS DOS, thus proving it to be purely an extension to the OS, because it can run under more than one OS, even.

If MS Windows 3.xx is an OS, then emacs is an OS.

[piratePenguin]

emacs isnt an os?

[Calum]

http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs

http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem

[Kintaro]

DOS was the OS (hence its name)

Windows was a GUI, with extensions.

Try running Windows 1, 2 or 3 without DOS, you can't. Why? Because you have no OS.

You can even run MS Windows on DR-DOS, as well as MS DOS, thus proving it to be purely an extension to the OS, because it can run under more than one OS, even.

If MS Windows 3.xx is an OS, then emacs is an OS.

Emacs has a virtual machine, virtual memory, a stack for multiple programs doing audio at once, and a full TCP/IP stack available? Not to mention more? Please find me a reference of this and develop a rational argument.

As usual Calum, you barge into a discussion with absolutely no technical knowledge and just the experience of "how it looked." I think you just post these things to troll me.



The bit about MS-DOS and DR-DOS doesn't prove anything and you make an incredibly common logical fallacy, confusing association with causation.

This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation. Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

That Windows 3.11 can be launched from either means nothing because Linux as I already stated can be launched from either. It is also possible to hack the Linux kernel so after the sync before shutdown it puts DOS in the memory and throws a JMP to it. This would make MS-DOS about as useful as what you get when you "shut down to DOS" from Windows 9x. Windows 3.11 itself has to basically save the pages in memory so it can still remember anything when you "exit to DOS."

In any case, why don't you just leave your pointless comments to yourself when you know the discussion is above you. This would be like me barging in at CERN, and telling everyone what to do.

http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs

http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem

, you really are a moron. This does not boot, this is calling a shell an operating system. It relies on UNIX/Linux/BSD, which is still the operating system. As I said, Windows 3.11 is a virtual machine with protected memory which uses DOS as a disk driver. For anything else Windows 3.11 needs drivers of its own. It would be impossible to get it to work with DOS TSR packet drivers, etc, etc with multitasking anyway.

So, fuck off, learn a programming language like x86 assembler, C, or C++ and come back when you can add something that isn't a half-educated stab at logic. You are KILLING it.

[worker201]

If Windows 3.x provides low-level system management functions that MS-DOS alone cannot provide, then it is a 'real' OS, even if it can't stand alone.  But even if it doesn't, I would still consider Windows+DOS to be just as 'real' as any other OS.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't think anyone's asked the important question: what is an OS?

In my view it's a piece of software required to manage the computer's hardware and make it useful for running programs. If this definition us used then Linux is not an OS, it's just a kernel and requires other components to be added before it's an OS. Windows 3.1 is not OS because it requires DOS as bootloader to run. Technically DOS is an OS but it's so archaic that it doesn't manage modern PC hardware well enough to be much use so needs something like a DOS extender to be of any real use.

[worker201]

I think it's self-evident that a kernel by itself is not an operating system.  In much the same way that an engine is not a car, and a battery is not a Walkman.

MS-DOS might not be suitable for your computer, but it is most certainly an OS.

[Calum]

Emacs has a virtual machine, virtual memory, a stack for multiple programs doing audio at once, and a full TCP/IP stack available? Not to mention more? Please find me a reference of this and develop a rational argument.

grow up, mister 22 years old. Why the fuck do i need to convince you i'm right? your opinions are all over this board, and many of them are bullshit, if you can have your say, then i can have mine.

re: emacs, it's a text editor, not an OS. Just like ms windows was a GUI, not an OS. It was sold as a separate product ffs, and buying that product on its own would not enable you to run an OS on your computer.

As usual Calum, you barge into a discussion with absolutely no technical knowledge and just the experience of "how it looked." I think you just post these things to troll me.

don't flatter yourself. Still, this has got to be one of the most ironic things i have ever read on this board. me trolling you? If that ever happened, you'd deserve it, that's for sure.

, you really are a moron.

no, i'm not. However you're an offensive arsehole.

This does not boot, this is calling a shell an operating system. It relies on UNIX/Linux/BSD, which is still the operating system.

do i give a fuck? this project has nothing to do with me, and i wasn't trying to use it as a reference, just an interesting related link. Are we not allowed to do that now, oh great kintaro? As an authority figure, you're pretty unconvincing.

As I said, Windows 3.11 is a virtual machine with protected memory which uses DOS as a disk driver. For anything else Windows 3.11 needs drivers of its own. It would be impossible to get it to work with DOS TSR packet drivers, etc, etc with multitasking anyway.

blah blah blah, but can you RUN A COMPUTER with it. no. Can you run a computer using DOS? yes. This means you can OPERATE using it, and it is a SYSTEM.

So, fuck off, learn a programming language like x86 assembler, C, or C++ and come back when you can add something that isn't a half-educated stab at logic. You are KILLING it.

no, but you're a control obsessed paranoid that thinks a discussion's only valid if yours are the only opinions aired. As i said, grow up.