home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!jade.tufts.edu!news.tufts.edu!news.tufts.edu!tguez
- From: tguez@jade.tufts.edu (Name)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Subject: Re: Windows == OS
- Message-ID: <TGUEZ.92Aug28015529@jade.tufts.edu>
- Date: 28 Aug 92 06:05:36 GMT
- References: <1961cd20@p3.f67.n245.z2.fidonet.org> <TGUEZ.92Aug24191246@jade.tufts.edu>
- <1992Aug25.040007.5898@cco.caltech.edu>
- <TGUEZ.92Aug25151752@jade.tufts.edu>
- <1992Aug26.044858.25614@cco.caltech.edu>
- <TGUEZ.92Aug26163457@jade.tufts.edu>
- <1992Aug27.001245.10197@cco.caltech.edu>
- Sender: news@news.tufts.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
- Lines: 211
- In-Reply-To: heathh@cco.caltech.edu's message of 27 Aug 92 00:12:45 GMT
-
- It does not matter how I installed QEMM (as long as it works),
- and if it is anyone's fault that it is not installed properly,
- it's the installation program's fault. Have I used emm, and it
- would have informed windows that there was a problem and windows
- would of consequently displayed a dialog box is of no material
- here. It does not matter who informs the user of the error, it
- is important who takes care of things. If window's would of
- displayed dialog boxes, and qemm or emm would of never display
- the error themselves, then I would have no argument, but that
- would only credit windows with a good job at hiding, not
- managing things.
-
-
-
- Clearly, you seem to miss the point every time. It is not
- argued that windows does not take care of memory management for
- it's environment, it is argued that windows does not take care
- of system-wide memory management-- as an operating system should.
-
-
-
- Your response to the virtual machines paragraph clearly shows
- that you have absolutely no idea what virtual machines are.
- Therefore, let me teach you a little about them:
-
-
-
- Conceptually a computer system is made up of layers. The
- hardware is the lowest level. The kernel running at the next
- level utilizes the hardware to create a set of system calls to
- be used by higher layers (this is operating system APIs). The
- system programs are the next level, above the kernel, and are
- allowed to use either system calls or hardware calls to enrich
- the set of system APIs. There is a vague line between system
- programs API and the kernel's API, and sometimes there is no
- telling apart. System programs view the hardware and kernel
- calls as if they were at the same level-- kernel functions are
- thought to bootstrap the hardware. On some systems this is
- carried even further, and application programs are allowed to
- make system calls. The application views everything underneath
- it in this hierarchy as though it is apart of the machine itself.
-
-
-
- The logical extension of this approach, and also the conclusion
- of this approach is reached in the concept of virtual machines.
- The development of CPU scheduling algorithms and virtual-memory
- techniques made it possible for an operating system to create
- the illusion of multiple processes. This virtual machine
- concept does not provide any additional functionally, it
- provides multiple, identical virtual copies of the bare
- underlying hardware. Virtual machines are obliged, by their
- nature and concept, to support virtual disk-drives, virtual
- printers (otherwise known as spooling) and (even) virtual tape
- drivers. A process or a user that is given a virtual machine
- can run any software that is available to the underline machine.
- On the VM operating system (which I mistook for the CP/M, in an
- earlier post) , which IBM wrote, the user would typically run a
- single-user operating system, I think it's the CMS operating
- system. Yes, here you have a classical scenario of an operating
- system nested within an operating system. However, notice that
- the inner operating system does not depend on the services of
- the outer operating system, it does not even know of it's
- existence-- long way from DOS/Windows relationship. I would
- love to go an and explain to you these concepts but I really
- would rather spend my time more productively.
-
-
-
- I have tried very hard to keep away from these formal discussions and
- to bring out examples that would clearly imply a sort of DOS/Windows
- dependency that is not consistent with a true operating system.
- However, you have repeatedly misunderstood my simple and subtle
- arguments for ignorant arguments and pulled my tongue by the low use
- of personal remarks. If you still don't get the picture, then I feel
- very sorry for you. Simple windows reactions could easily shoot it
- down as an operating system, as Erike van Linstee
- (linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl) put one example, "Ever hear of an OS
- you can quit and still have a functioning machine?!"
-
- OS/2 is design the way windows should have been designed,
- was it an operating system:
-
- +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
- | | | | | |
- | Application| | Application| | Application|
- | | | | | |
- +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
- +======================================================+
- | +----------------------------------+..............+ |
- | | application programming interface| API extension| |
- | +----------------------------------+..............+ |
- | |
- | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ |
- | | subsystem | | subsystem | | subsystem | |
- | +-----------+ +-----------+............+-----------+ |
- | +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | | |
- | | | |
- | | system kernel | |
- | | memory management | |
- | | task dispatching | |
- | | device management | |
- | +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
- | | device | | device | | device | | device | |
- | | driver | | driver | | driver | | driver | |
- | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
- +======================================================+
-
-
- MS-DOS is one of those operating system that started as a small,
- simple and limited system, and is know in the mids of growing beyond
- it's intendent scope. Although MS-DOS has some structure, it's level
- of functionality are not well separated:
-
- +----------------------------------------------+
- | application program |
- +----------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | |
- +---------------------------+ |
- | resident system program | |
- +---------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | | |
- +----------------+ | |
- | MS-DOS device | | |
- | drivers | | |
- +----------------+ | |
- | | |
- +----------------------------------------------+
- | ROM BIOS device drivers |
- +----------------------------------------------+
-
-
- This how window seems to look like:
-
- +=============== Some Larger Frame =================+
- | | |
- | +--------------------+ | +----------------------+ |
- | | applications (dos) | | | Windows Applications | |
- | +--------------------+ | +----------------------+ |
- | | |
- +------------------------+==========================+
- | | Window's Engine |
- | +--------------------------+
- | | Kernel | memory |
- | | device man | management |
- +--------------------------------+--------------------------+
- | application program | window's device drivers**|
- +--------------------------------+==========================+
- | command interpreters |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------+
- | | | | |
- +------------+----------+-------+ | * Notice the
- | | | soup between DOS
- +--------------------------+ | | device drivers
- | resident system program | | | and window's
- +--------------------------+ | | device drivers
- | | | | |
- | | | | |
- +----------------+ | | |
- | MS-DOS device | | | |
- | drivers | | | |
- +----------------+ | | |
- | | | | |
- +----------------------------------------------+
- | ROM BIOS device drivers |
- +----------------------------------------------+
-
- ** I am not sure if window's drivers go into the level
- of MS-DOS device drivers, or should they appear in both
- places.
-
- MS-DOS is not structured well, and windows sorts
- of expands,replaces,intervines, completes, layers
- and integrates into DOS. DOS is still the dominant
- operating system at all times. Windows looks more
- like a shell that breaks the rules and does things
- that it should not than an operating system.
-
- I'll tell you what. I could go over the acceptible definitons of an
- operating systems but arguing with you is really hopeless. Since you
- are soooo concerned to get an absolute decision if windows is or is
- not an operating system rather then exploring the holes and the
- inconsistency each view creates, I'll just destroy this silley view
- now:
-
- Bare hardware alone is nothing, it's like a human body with all the
- integral parts except the nerves to connect them all. An operating
- system alone performs no useful function by itself (io.sys, and
- bios.sys without command.com, clearer now?). An operating system can
- also be viewed as a resource allocator, allocates resources to programs
- (memory for command.com, for instance). There is no universally
- accepted defintion of what is a part of the operating system or not.
- However, there is one thing that appears in absolutely every operating
- system, and this single thing logically follows from any single statement
- about an opearting system. I'll use simple words, now, so you'll be
- sure to understand:
-
- An operating system is the one program running at all times on the
- computer, with all else being programs.
-
- > Aggravatedly,
- > Heath
-
- Entertained,
- Tomer
-
-
-