Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #341657

Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue

From	Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue
Date	2016-01-25 18:38 +0100
Organization	DNLA GmbH
Message-ID	<n85md8$bon$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <n7stmm$dke$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> <n7t9lo$nf8$1@dont-email.me> <n7tqgo$v0i$1@dont-email.me> <n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> <n85hvk$pca$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> 
> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message
> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>
>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>
> 
> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't
> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
> 
> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of
> memory per app.
> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
> 
> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS
> and used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own
> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking,
> printing, memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
> 
> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility
> so nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But
> supporting legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
> 
> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s)
> of Win95 used DOS to function?

DOS device drivers. That was all which ran from MSDOS in W95
If no DOS device drivers were used, DOS was not needed at all except to boot 
the machine.

DOS itself was run in virtual x86 mode, it was run inside W95, not the other 
way around

Thread

Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 05:31 -0800
  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-18 10:34 +0000
    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 09:48 +0000
      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-20 15:07 +0000
        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-20 19:23 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 09:44 +0000
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 10:48 +0000
              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 11:05 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 13:11 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 18:30 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-22 09:47 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 14:11 +0100
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 12:59 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 22:33 +0100
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:22 -0700
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:34 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:19 -0600
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 08:59 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:22 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 14:58 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:23 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-25 18:38 +0100
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 12:52 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:58 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:35 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:39 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:35 -0700
      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0500
        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 15:36 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0500
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:58 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:16 +0000
        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:54 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 14:09 -0500
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0000
              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:17 -0500
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:20 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:11 -0700
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-27 21:26 +0000

csiph-web