All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
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:
LOL, 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:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 1 June 2010, 11:59 ---LOL, 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Refalm on 1 June 2010, 11:37 ---Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version