Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #282 > unrolled thread

What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer

Contents

  What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-16 18:27 -0400
    Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Trifle Menot <triflemenot@beewyz.com> - 2011-10-16 23:38 +0000
    Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-10-17 05:16 -0400
      Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@gmx.de> - 2011-10-17 16:47 +0200
        Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? tomdzip <tomdzip@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-17 09:02 -0700
          Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@gmx.de> - 2011-10-18 08:42 +0200
        Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-10-17 13:34 -0400
          Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-17 16:43 -0400
            Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-17 18:34 -0400
              Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-17 19:29 -0400
                Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-17 20:36 -0400
                  Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-17 21:36 -0400
                    Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-18 09:46 -0400
            Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-10-18 10:51 -0400
              Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-18 13:49 -0400
    Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-17 12:46 -0400
      Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-17 19:46 -0400
        Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Trifle Menot <triflemenot@beewyz.com> - 2011-10-18 00:14 +0000
        Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-10-17 20:56 -0400
        Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@gmx.de> - 2011-10-18 08:53 +0200
          Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? DOS Guy <DOS@Guy.com> - 2011-10-18 09:12 -0400
            Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? Jim Leonard <mobygamer@gmail.com> - 2011-10-18 07:03 -0700
            Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@gmx.de> - 2011-10-19 10:07 +0200
          Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2011-10-19 01:26 +0100
            Re: What role does "DOS" play in Windows 95/98? "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@gmx.de> - 2011-10-19 09:19 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#300

Klaus Meinhard wrote:

> > Isin't it more accurate to say that Windows 9x is simply accessing
> > hardware via a 16-bit driver running in the DOS VMM that IT
> > (windows) controls?
> 
> Since DOS has to be started to provide a platform from which
> Win95/98 can be launched, and has to be present so that Win95/98
> can run, it is perfectly defendable to say that Win 95/98 runs
> "on top of" Windows.

No.  It's more like Win-9x is boot-loaded by DOS.  

I could just as easily say that Windows NT "runs on top of" it's boot
loader.  That is equally true according to your definition of "runs on
top of" - but it's not a useful statement. 

The DOS that existed transiently in memory when win-9x was invoked is
swept away as 9x is started.  As such, Win-9x can't "run on top of"
something that no longer exists.

> Now you can carefully define your directions: perhaps Win95/98 runs
> beside or under DOS?  You can try to define the amount of DOS as a
> percentage in any given situation. You can ask youself if a clone of
> the underlying DOS is still DOS at all: has it its soul?

Are you trying to imply that DOS is acting like an always-present
foundation for Win-9x?

If so, you might want to explain how 16-bit, single-tasking real-mode
code can act as a foundation layer for a 32-bit, preemtive multi-tasking
protected-mode OS running "above" it.

Win-9x needs to be able to run 16-bit "DOS" programs.  That was part of
it's design mandate when it was created by Microsoft to insure backwards
compatibility with the existing i86 software.  So just because it does
have full DOS-emulation capability inside it doesn't mean it needs to
resort to any of it when it's running win32 code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#302

On Oct 18, 8:12 am, DOS Guy <D...@Guy.com> wrote:
> If so, you might want to explain how 16-bit, single-tasking real-mode
> code can act as a foundation layer for a 32-bit, preemtive multi-tasking
> protected-mode OS running "above" it.

This all depends on what your definition of foundation layer is, which
you seem to be sliding back and forth in an effort to prove your
argument.  You are religiously attached to your favorite operating
system family, so no argument is really going to sway you from your
opinion.

You seem offended that a 16-bit operating system is the foundation for
its higher functions, but I don't see you annoyed by the 16-bit BIOS
that is the foundation for *all* operating systems you boot on your
machine.  Wonder why that is.

Troll is trolling, move along.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307

Hallo DOS Guy,

> No.  It's more like Win-9x is boot-loaded by DOS.
>
> I could just as easily say that Windows NT "runs on top of" it's
> boot loader.  That is equally true according to your definition of
> "runs on top of" - but it's not a useful statement.

You should try to read the Wikipedia entry 
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95>

<Quote>

To end-users, MS-DOS appeared as an underlying component of Windows 
95. For example, it was possible to prevent loading the graphical user 
interface and boot the system into a real-mode MS-DOS environment. 
This sparked debate amongst users and professionals over the question 
of to what extent Windows 95 was an operating system or merely a 
graphical shell running on top of MS-DOS. From an architectural 
stance, both viewpoints lack nuance.

When the graphical user interface was started, the virtual machine 
manager took over the filesystem-related and disk-related 
functionality from MS-DOS, which itself was demoted to a compatibility 
layer for 16-bit device drivers.[14] This contrasted with earlier 
versions of Windows which relied on MS-DOS to perform file and disk 
access. (Windows for Workgroups 3.11 could also largely bypass MS-DOS 
when 32-bit file access and 32-bit disk access was enabled.) Keeping 
MS-DOS in memory allowed Windows 95 to use DOS device drivers if 
suitable Windows drivers were unavailable. MS-DOS also still handled 
most other functions (for example, allocating memory and parsing file 
names), issued by legacy Win16 and DOS applications, as Microsoft saw 
little benefit in replacing these helper functions with newly-written 
32-bit code.[14]

<Unquote>


-- 
Best regards,

*  Klaus Meinhard  *
<www.4dos.info>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#305

"Klaus Meinhard" wrote:

> What I don't understand is that this discussion crops up again after
> so many years.

It's my fault.

Newsgroups: alt.comp.virus
Subject: Re: Download links to Fake UPS spam (was: Fake UPS e-mail contains  nasty  ...)
Message-ID: <p4WdneQVvN7JigfTnZ2dnUVZ8nSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

In which I describe some malware found in DOS Guy's (Virus Guy in that
group) browser cache. At the end of the article I made what I consider
a throwaway remark:

"...Win9x which is really just a shell (albeit rather sophisticated)
 running on top of DOS".

That's what started the trouble, Virus Guy calling it a "crazy claim".
In my next post I retracted and in subsequent posts tried to explain
why I thought of it that way. Then I noticed the discussion here
(comp.os.msdos.programmer) and also quoted from Ross Ridge's "Yes and
no" article.

I've no idea why VG is so passionate about it because it was a side
issue to the thread topic and I wasn't arguing one way or the other
but only pointing out some things that made me take that view.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306

Hallo Ant,

> I've no idea why VG is so passionate about it because it was a side
> issue to the thread topic and I wasn't arguing one way or the other
> but only pointing out some things that made me take that view.

thanx for the explanation. :-)

As I tried to outline in my last posting, it is a question of how you 
define your terms (under, on top of..., etc.) and shouldn't really 
matter to anybody outside of MS marketing in the 90s. "DOS Guy" seems 
to be a little challenged in grasping his facts, so I'll lay this to 
rest.


-- 
Best regards,

*  Klaus Meinhard  *
<www.4dos.info>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.msdos.programmer

csiph-web