All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Windows 3.xx, OS or not?

<< < (3/7) > >>

Kintaro:

--- Quote from: Calum on  1 June 2010, 16:55 ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: The Skeptics Guide ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Calum on  1 June 2010, 17:34 ---http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs

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



--- End quote ---

LOL, 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:

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote ---LOL, you really are a moron.
--- End quote ---
no, i'm not. However you're an offensive arsehole.
--- Quote ---This does not boot, this is calling a shell an operating system. It relies on UNIX/Linux/BSD, which is still the operating system.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page