Windows 3.xx, OS or not?

[Kintaro]

ad hominem ad homeinem, you shouldn't open on them man its bad trolling etiquette, always FINISH on the Ad Homiem, because then its not really part of your argument and you don't end up looking like a stubborn fuck who refuses to see logic.

Windows 3.xx is more than a GUI you twit.

[Calum]

yes, but by finishing with the ad hominem, as you just did, it makes you look like you haven't a clue what you're talking about, because all you appear to be saying is that you think i am a twit, therefore your opinions must be right, and that really is stupid.

Still, i guess you know a lot more about trolling than i do.

PS - thanks for throwing in the word "should" again, love it when you do that.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Lol Kintaro started ad hominem and Calum foolishly reacted to it - do either of you learn anything?

Don't sart ad hominem and if someone else starts it, don't rise to it which only makes you look weaker, not stronger.

Anyway, Kintaro is right about Windows 3.x being more than a GUI but whether it's an OS or not depends the definition of an operating system.

[Kintaro]

Lol Kintaro started ad hominem and Calum foolishly reacted to it - do either of you learn anything?

Don't sart ad hominem and if someone else starts it, don't rise to it which only makes you look weaker, not stronger.

Anyway, Kintaro is right about Windows 3.x being more than a GUI but whether it's an OS or not depends the definition of an operating system.

They're not actually ad hominems because the character assaults were not used to effect the subject of debate. Calum didn't say "kintaro is a stupidhead and that makes 3.11 a GUI," and I all I said is that Calum's argument was a logical fallacy which means he is a baffoon - which isn't an ad hominem and calling it such is reversing casualty.

yes, but by finishing with the ad hominem, as you just did, it makes you look like you haven't a clue what you're talking about, because all you appear to be saying is that you think i am a twit, therefore your opinions must be right, and that really is stupid.

Still, i guess you know a lot more about trolling than i do.

PS - thanks for throwing in the word "should" again, love it when you do that.

You are wrong Calum, I first devised the logical flaw in your argument and then I said you don't know what you are talking about and from that I derived that you are a twit. So you have made yet ANOTHER logical fallacy, of reversing casualty to support your argument. Anyway, there is clearly no point debating you with reason so, next time you visit Australia: I challenge you to a duel. To the death.

[Kintaro]

Here is the source code for DOS 6.0: http://john.fawltyservers.com/MSODS60src.zip

I can't remember the original origin but I think it was Microsoft.

Pretty interesting stuff.

[Calum]

You are wrong Calum, I first devised the logical flaw in your argument and then I said you don't know what you are talking about and from that I derived that you are a twit. So you have made yet ANOTHER logical fallacy, of reversing casualty to support your argument. Anyway, there is clearly no point debating you with reason so, next time you visit Australia: I challenge you to a duel. To the death.

Can't you just grow up instead?

here's some quite simple logic. DOS is an OS, Windows is a program which runs under this OS, just like any application program extends the functions of the OS it runs under, windows does this for DOS. Any further logical statements about who is wrong or who is a twit or a stupidhead need to realise that any persons disagreeing with these facts are at least wrong about these facts. Further to this, any arguments based on one person having an encyclopaedic knowledge of programming languages, filesystem design etc etc are simply an attempt by the person claiming superiority to strawman their perceived opponent into submission, since it requires very little actual computer knowledge to grasp the concepts involved in this debate.

That should be clear enough for even you to understand.  If not, i invite you to come to Scotland and have a custard pie fight to decide it once and for all.

[Kintaro]

Eh, you just keep repeating the same argument. It's based entirely on observation from a simple abstraction of events, you launch windows from DOS. You can launch Linux from Dos, and Windows 9x (where disk drivers are added and DOS code isn't used at all). Eh, learn moar. Hell, I am running three different OS's under VMware... Are they suddenly Applications?

[Calum]

Eh, you just keep repeating the same argument. It's based entirely on observation from a simple abstraction of events, you launch windows from DOS. You can launch Linux from Dos, and Windows 9x (where disk drivers are added and DOS code isn't used at all).

straw man again, here's why. You can launch MS Windows from DOS, and that's because it's a program that runs under DOS. You can launch Linux from DOS, i presume you mean using LINLOAD.EXE, as this tech is contemporary with MS Windows? As you know the DOS surrenders the computer to the new OS.

Eh, learn moar.

and this is your standard claim to intellectual superiority, how convincing. 

Hell, I am running three different OS's under VMware... Are they suddenly Applications?

Nope, actually, VMWare is the application, running under whatever your real OS is (that is running on your real hardware, i mean). The OSs you're running under VMWare are still OSs, running on the virtual hardware presented by VMWare. Don't you know this? I thought you were supposed to have all this superior knowledge.

[Kintaro]

Sigh. DOS surrenders everything to Windows 3.1s virtual machine, which from that point handles any application code. DOS is practically dormant at that point. I won't say it again. Stop going around in circles.

[Aloone_Jonez]

The whole argument is bullshit anyway because no one has defined what an operating system is, for the purposes of this discussion.

This reminds e of another ridicules argument I had with someone about WINE being an emulator. Yes it is not a CPU emulator or virtual machine but if one looks up the definition of the word emulator it fits what WINE does: it allows an operating system (Linux) to emulate the functionality of anther (Windows).

[worker201]

The whole argument is bullshit anyway because no one has defined what an operating system is, for the purposes of this discussion.

I don't think that matters all that much, unless your definition of an OS is wildly different than someone else's.  If Kintaro's last statement is true, then Windows is performing OS duties (again, using whatever subset of all computer actions you can name, Windows is doing them), and this argument is over without defining its parameters.

[Kintaro]

An operating is system is what gives the userland apps functionality, an application binary interface, some memory management.

DOS fits this quite well, so does Windows 3.xx which is highly independent of DOS. Especially 3.1x because it adds virtual memory, among others things as I keep saying. Windows 3.11 has its own APIs and application support and all that.

[Calum]

i'd like to see you install MS Windows and not DOS and get the computer working.

An OS makes your computer operate. Without DOS, 16 bit Windows does not do this.

Arguments based on OS duties, functionality etc are secondary to this inescapable fact.

PS - 32 bit windows is an OS because it does do this, whether it's based on MS DOS or not, if you get a Windows 95/98/2000 CD and install the system from it, you get a windows operating system, with DOS integrated (or emulated in some cases?) as part of it. But with 16 bit windows, the installer is a program that you run in DOS, just like every other DOS program is.

simples.

[Kintaro]

i'd like to see you install MS Windows and not DOS and get the computer working.

An OS makes your computer operate. Without DOS, 16 bit Windows does not do this.

Arguments based on OS duties, functionality etc are secondary to this inescapable fact.

PS - 32 bit windows is an OS because it does do this, whether it's based on MS DOS or not, if you get a Windows 95/98/2000 CD and install the system from it, you get a windows operating system, with DOS integrated (or emulated in some cases?) as part of it. But with 16 bit windows, the installer is a program that you run in DOS, just like every other DOS program is.

simples.

Nope, you won't get Windows 9x to run either without DOS. This is because in the initial stages of its operation, just like Windows 3.xx, win.com uses DOS disk functions to open up vxds (in 9x) for things like the disk driver, display driver, etc. Then it switches into protected mode, and fires up the virtual machine (that 'emulator' you talk about). Also, with Windows 3.xx the extractor that puts the installer on the disk is written in DOS, the actual installer is a windows application. As a nostalgic, I've installed this recently enough under VMware to know.

Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.

In any case this is getting a bit like debating that Linux isn't an operating system when it is running under VMware.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.

He's not saying any of that isn't true, just that his definition of an operating system is a piece of software which is required to use a computer and that Windows 3.1 doesn't meet that definition because DOS is required in order to fulfil the role of an OS.

We're going round in circles, I said this a couple of posts ago, not only is Windows 3.1 not an operating system neither is Linux which is just a kernel and requires other components (bootloader, shell etc.) before it can be considered to be an operating system.