#Lest We Forget
36 messages in this thread
As far as the big MS is concerned, it is an 'operating system'. But of course
they also have said that "Windows 95" is a 32 bit operating system, which it
definitely isn't. OS/2 is great, don't get me wrong, but IBM doesn't have(or
didn't before the new WARP ad campaign) the marketing savvy to effectively
market against Micro-Slop. And to make matters worse, not very many publishers
are creating GOOD os/2 software, or making good ports of their windows
software, and a good operating system without good software just won't survive.
James:
> As far as the big MS is concerned, it is an 'operating system'.
Well, they're wrong. Just because MS says it doesn't mean it's true. I think
people are realizing that more and more.
> …but IBM doesn't have(or didn't before the new WARP ad campaign) the
marketing savvy to effectively market against Micro-Slop.
No argument there. IBM is changing for the better, but the jury is still out
on how successful they'll be.
> …and a good operating system without good software just won't survive.
Sad, but true. Kinda puts OS/2 in the same category as AmigaDOS. People who
use either of those systems know they have something superior to the mainstream
DOS/Windows kludge. It's just too bad the developer support is so weak.
Fortunately for OS/2, it's gaining new support right now. It'll be interesting
to see if the Amiga can do the same when (if?) it gets revived.
Wayne
I'm not sure that even MS claims windows is an "operating system." I think the
term they use is "operating environment," not quite the same thing. Windows NT
and Win95 ARE supposed to be operating systems.
-Karl
>I'm not sure that even MS claims windows is an "operating system."
I'm afraid they do claim it's an operating system. Check out the Windows 3.1
users manual.
And I quote "…User's Guide
For the Microsoft Windows Opertaing System…"
1st page.
"Windows NT"
WinNT IS an Operating system
"Win95"
I thought so at first, but it's turning out that it is a somewhat debatable
point.
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Well, yeah, the manual says that, but you can corner the MS people and they'll
freely admit it's not so. And according to any definition of "operating
system" that *I* ever heard, windows is not. Since NT disables DOS when
running, it is, necessarily, an operating system. 95, as a detuned NT, should
share this characteristic, but we will have to see.
-Karl
"Well, yeah, the manual says that, but you can corner the MS people and they'll
freely admit it's not so."
I know it's not an OS, and yes, most MS people will say that it isn't an OS/
either. But why do they market it as such then?
"Since NT disables DOS when running, it is, necessarily, an operating system."
NT doesn't disable DOS, as it loads instead of DOS.
"95, as a detuned NT, should share this characteristic, but we will have to
see."
There's no relation between NT and Win95. If I'd say anything about Win95 be
tuned anything, I'd say it was a supertuned Win3.1. Win95 STILL has a DOS
layer underneath. 🙁
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Why does MS say that it's an operating system, when it's not?
For the same reason that they hype and make other outside the bounds of
truth for their other products.
They want to sell product, and will use any means to do it, including
hamper free trade. Which is why the judge rejected the settlement last
week of the ant-trust investigation against Microsoft, and sent the
justice department back to square one.
Evidently the judge must not be partial to Windows…. Perhaps he has an
Amiga in his closet.
I agree totally with your post!
"Perhaps he has an Amiga in his closet."
Could be!
Unfortunately, now it's going to drag out a long time now. Not that it
shouldn't as it's my opinion that the consent decree was WAY to light. (for
whatever reason.)
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
>NT doesn't disable DOS, as it loads instead of DOS.
It does? It didn't look like that on our installations, but I didn't look that
close. *Something* has to be running the system before NT boots, no? I do know
that DOS is not running while NT is, which was my point.
-Karl
"It does?"
Yep, I believe it does.
"*Something* has to be running the system before NT boots, no?"
There's a BIOS routine that goes out and gets the boot sector, and that tells
the machine how to boot. (Just like the Amiga.)
Perhaps your NT machines were dual boot, NT and DOS. There's no indication of
DOS when we booted up our NT machines, but they weren't dual boot. We don't
have the machines anymore, so I can't check again to make sure.
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Yes, I believe you're correct, they are dual boot. Booting NT requires a
specific command.
-Karl
That would explain the DOS…
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Karl:
>> *Something* has to be running the system before NT boots, no?
No. NT is a fully self-contained OS. DOS isn't required to install or boot
it. The character-based stuff you see before NT is fully installed may look
like DOS, but it isn't. Anyway, don't confuse NT with its younger sibling
Windows 3.x which doesn't do anything without DOS.
Wayne
Well, I don't make THAT mistake, anyway, although there seems to be a little
confusion around here over the relationship between Windows, NT, and Win95.
-Karl
Karl:
> I think the term they use is "operating environment," not quite the same
thing.
Good. When it comes to Win3.x, that's the term I use as well. WinNT, on the
other hand, is a full OS (with the crappy Win3.x GUI). Win95 is also supposed
to be a full OS, but right now it's vapor. 🙂
Wayne
Wayne,
I just had to get in the fray on this one…
>>Well, they're wrong. Just because MS says it doesn't mean it's true. I
think people are realizing that more and more.<<
That may well be, but as with all of MicroS**t's claims they just re-define
what they are talking about. They may say that Windows 3.1 is an operating
system in the 3.1 docs and packaging. Not according to my definition.
However…
Windows 3.1 does 'operate' or 'function effectively or work', even if it's
level of functionality or ability to do work leaves room for debate, and it is
a 'system' or 'a group of interrelated elements forming a collective entity'.
So if you take the literal meanings of the two words then one has a (weak)
argument that Windows is an operating system. However, it is no OS.
Of corse you might look at some other definitions of operating and system. How
about 'to control the funtioning of' 'a social, economic, or political
organizational form'.
That sounds more like it to me.
Robb
Robert:
System software can't be classified as an OS unless it is self-contained. In
other words, it must install, operate, and provide its services without the
need for any low-level components beyond the computer's base ROM code. Windows
3.x does NOT meet this criteria. It will not install or function in any way
without the benefit of DOS.
I don't care how MS slices it. Win3 is *not* and OS. In this case, DOS is the
OS and Win3 is an OS extention. They may have suckered a large portion of the
user community, but that doesn't change the facts. When they "redefine"
standards, it's only to make themselves and their products look better in the
eyes of the press. Too bad the press usually falls for it.
Wayne
Windows is a Shell, just like DosShell. Would you consider DosShell to be an
operating system? All it is _basically_ designed to do is make DOS look
pretty.
Rick Green via AutoPilot 1.77
I do OS's for a living. I know what OS's are and do. From laptops to
mainframes.
Windows is not an OS.
Jeese you guys I was just kinding around<g>.
If you go back and read my message knowing that it might read differently.
Robb
Ok, you can slide by this time <g>
Rick Green via AutoPilot 1.77
PMFJI James,
People's attitudes towards OS/2 really puzzle me. So many people have made it
a habit to rag on Windows for omitting this or that, or not being "processor
effienct". OTOH, why should we just excuse OS/2 for being an incredible memory
hog? I regularly see recommendations from OS/2 users that 32MB (RAM, that is)
is the low-end "no constraints" setup (16MB is merely "useable").
Personally, for what they do, I can't excuse such waste in either OS.
Remember when MS and IBM started work on OS/2 because Unix was for "large
computers"? _Now_ look who is (relatively) slim & trim…. it is to laugh!
(but it hurts)
FYI- SUN is publishing a Windows API standard that is _public_ (open to all
developers), trying to take the sole proprietorship of the Windows standard
away from MS. This "Public Windows" will be made available on various systems,
including SUNOS/Unix (and possibly AmigaDOS- who knows). I can even see IBM
replacing their own Windows API for OS/2 with this. Then there would be 2 major
GUI standards in the whole industry: Windows and X-Windows! <BG>
-Chris
"People's attitudes towards OS/2 really puzzle me. So many people have made it
a habit to rag on Windows for omitting this or that, or not being "processor
effienct". OTOH, why should we just excuse OS/2 for being an incredible memory
hog? I regularly see recommendations from OS/2 users that 32MB (RAM, that is)
is the low-end "no constraints" setup (16MB is merely "useable")."
Pretty much true except with V3 of OS/2 it's 8M is "adequate", 16 is good, and
anything more is gravy.
"Personally, for what they do, I can't excuse such waste in either OS."
While OS/2 isn't is trim as our fav, AmigaDOS, for what it does, it's just as
an amazing OS as AmigaDOS is. One of the big failings of OS/2 is not driven by
the design team, but the market, and the market said it had to run Windows, so
OS/2 got a lot of kludge built in to do this. If it didn't need to run Win or
DOS apps, it wouldn't need near the amount of mem it needs now. Also, in
addition to with AmigaDOS has, OS/2 has a real virtual memory paginging scheme,
is well as, intertask protection. It also has a much more dynamic way of
allocating priorities. The PM shell also has a lot of object properties built
in that'll translte well into the next wave of "object oriented" operating
systems. OS/2 also has a distributed computing environment and object sharing
technology that will knock your socks off soon. (When the ISV's catch up to the
OS)
"FYI- SUN is publishing a Windows API standard that is _public_ (open to all
developers), trying to take the sole proprietorship of the Windows standard
away from MS. This "Public Windows" will be made available on various systems,
including SUNOS/Unix (and possibly AmigaDOS- who knows). I can even see IBM
replacing their own Windows API for OS/2 with this. Then there would be 2 major
GUI standards in the whole industry: Windows and X-Windows! <BG>"
I though X-Windows has been pretty much public all along. (And it's been
around a LONG time.) I has a LOT of good points to! I'd take it over the
WinAPI any day, though I'm not sure I'd pick it over the OS/2 API. My
experience with XWindows was not that pleasant, as I I had do a project in X11
with X10 docs. I grew to hate the term "bus error"!
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Tell me one thing, though: does OS/2 3 have threaded message queues?
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – now on a WarpEngine 3040!
"Tell me one thing, though: does OS/2 3 have threaded message queues?"
No, not really. (If you are talking about the System Event message queue
anyway. Programs can have other queue's if they are so programmed.)
But that's MUCH less of a problem now, as it's fairly easy to flush a hung app.
(which hangs the system message queue.)
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
So how do you flush a hung app if the system message queue is also hung?
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – now on a WarpEngine 3040!
Paul:
> So how do you flush a hung app if the system message queue is also hung?
Pressing Ctrl-Esc usually does it for me. When an application hangs the
message queue, pressing Ctrl-Esc causes an "Application not responding…"
requester that allows me to kill the rogue program. I've had it take as long
as 15 seconds to respond, but it has always worked. Fortunately, message queue
hangs aren't very frequent under Warp.
Wayne
That very often failed for me under 2.1 and 2.11. However, 3.x could very well
have improved the situation.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – no longer Warped
Paul:
Eventhough I've had great success recovering from the hung queue, I must
confess that I've only been using OS/2 for a few months. Perhaps I just
haven't hit the "nasty" ones yet. 🙂
Wayne
Well, may you never meet the nasy ones. 😉 I remember when I was installing
and maintaining the early OS/2 2.0s the kind of troubles I had, and I'm glad
I'm not at that job anymore. Of course the last few days with my damn
WarpEngine have given me a taste of the past. 🙁
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – no longer Warped
Paul:
>> Of course the last few days with my damn WarpEngine have given me a taste
of the past. 🙁
I'm sorry to hear that. I also know how you feel. I have clients with Amigas,
Macs, DOS/Windows PC's, and OS/2 PC's. They all have a special way of p*ssing
me off sometimes. 😐
Wayne
Hangs ar emuch less frequent in Warp once you get your set up right. Also in
2.1 and 2.11, it was darn near impossible to kill the bad app.
I have one badly coded OS/2 app that can still hang warp, but it's a VERY rare
occurrence. (Twice since september when I started beta testing Warp.) I should
probably get rid of that app, as it's only a dirutil, but it's the best one
I've found for OS/2.
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
"So how do you flush a hung app if the system message queue is also hung?"
Sometimes just hitting the Ctrl key works, but on persistant hangs, Al-Esc and
wait a few seconds, then a requester pops up and asks you if you want to kill
the hung app.
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
OS/2's Kernal is about the same size as the (newer) Amigas ROM kernal. The
problems with OS/2 being bulky and kludgey are because of the design of the
hardware. AmigaDOS is great because it is built around pretty standard
hardware and it can make use of every bit of it. OS/2, however, has to be as
compatable as possible to every peripheral available for the PC (As well as
different BIOS, backwards compatability, etc). Of course, the extras are just
add-ins to be one-up on the competetor, and these add-ins are kludgey. It would
be impossible to make a streamlined operating system like AmigaDOS on PC's and
be usable.
Rick Green via AutoPilot 1.77
"It would be impossible to make a streamlined operating system like AmigaDOS on
PC's and be usable."
I tend to agree.
Team OS/2
Bob Comer Cheyenne, WY USA
Rick:
> It would be impossible to make a streamlined operating system like AmigaDOS
on PC's and be usable.
I think that's a very accurate statement. The hardware side of the PC platform
is such a mess, making an OS that works with every single variable must be a
nightmare. Attempting to develop one that's as fast, smooth, and effecient as
AmigaDOS would be almost futile. The PC's architecture is just too convoluted
and obsolete to really support a streamlined OS.
Wayne