Hi!
6-Июл-2006 22:10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>> You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within
>>> DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why??
GH> No one has answered this part yet, especially why.
There _was_ answer. See next line:
>> That's actually how Windows 1.x-3.x worked ...
Ie., Win3 was designed to work on runned MS-DOS. Not only MS-DOS 6.22 -
previous versions too.
GH> Yes, if you means 3.0 I agree it's a shell around DOS. I don't agree in
GH> the case of WfW 3.11
No, all the same, except that 3.11 contains more drivers. Kernel, which
works over DOS, remains same.
>> technically, Win95/98
>> also worked a similar way, but Microsoft kind of changed things to make
>> it not so obvious.
GH> I think to claim a 32bit prot-mode o/s with a PnP driver model is a "DOS
GH> Shell" is stretching it beyond belief.
Application, which runs from DOS, and works with disks directly (say,
FDISK), but continues to use DOS services for other tasks, remains
DOS-application.
GH> Does every 32bit API call map back to a DOS 6.22 software interrupt?
Not necessary. But many. And same true for other DOS-programs - beside
DOS API, they use many things without accessing DOS. For example, screen IO
through BIOS or even directly to video memory.
>> For Windows 3.11 (WFW) you boot into DOS, then you run "win" to start
>> Windows.
GH> Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different, plus
Startup files are same.
GH> it's prot-mode,
1. Previous versions also may work in PM (so called "Enhanced mode").
2. DOS-protected programs also works in PM. So what?
GH> and anyway is it not the case you are much better to run
GH> it with it's own startup files, HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP, as opposed to
GH> the DOS 6.22 versions, especially for Networking?
Wrong. MS-DOS 6.22 was much newer and it recommended to use
himem/emm386 from it, instead "native" ones.
>> Think of Windows as being just like Norton File Commander, or
>> MS-DOS DOSSHELL.
GH> I can't.
This is your trouble, not us. :)
>> Windows just sat on top of DOS and managed the
>> multitasking.
GH> As I said, a different o/s, the fact it was loaded from DOS 6.22 doesn't
GH> mean it's "just a DOS shell". If I booted WinXP from grub it doesn't
GH> mean it's "just a LINUX shell".
But XP doesn't uses grub for its services and nowhere depends from its
functionality. Whereas Win3 (and W9x) does depends on DOS services (though,
W9x is less dependent, because it replaces most services "on-the fly").
Different issue is Novel Netware - this OS starts from DOS, but it
completely not depends on DOS in other things, so this is really
(independent) OS.
GH> Eric mentioned in the past that DOS does
GH> not have the sub-systems to allow multiple programs to read/write to the
GH> NIC at the same time and to be able to queue them. In my view, this
GH> makes WfW a "different" o/s.
No. If I in my DOS-program implement asynchronous IO over serial lines,
this not makes my program "different OS".
>> Windows 3.11 (WFW) stopped using DOS for file i/o,
Not necessary - only when runned special driver, which bypasses DOS
(and BIOS).
GH> Exactly, but how did they invent new I/O that didn't rely on DOS?
Because DOS doesn't deals with real IO, DOS only handles logical
structure of file system - whereas driver traps all IO requests and replaces
BIOS functionality.
GH> Does Windows make calls direct to the hardware interrupts?
Yes. But these _additional_ features do not untie Win3 dependency from
DOS in all other parts.
>> Windows wasn't so much an operating system as an "extension"
>> that leveraged DOS to do most of the "behind the scenes" work. That's
>> what Ray means with "just a shell".
GH> OK, let's agree it's just a shell for a minute; why would anyone want to
GH> start it from within FreeDOS?
Because those "anyone" expect replace non-free MS-DOS by free one.
GH> In my view, it's a total mismatch. FreeDOS
GH> doesn't pretend to be a prot-mode o/s
Also as MS-DOS.
GH> and anyway it runs much better in real mode at the moment.
It runs same.
GH> If it's going to a 32/64 bit prot-mode o/s
...then it stops be "MS-DOS clone".
GH> then
GH> really it's time to forget the whole "legacy" thing and just create a
GH> next generation 64bit command line o/s that supports endless memory,
GH> multi-processors, multi-tasking, firmware BIOS, native SCSI, NTFS, NFS,
GH> KERBEROS and SMB signing.
There are a lot of already existing such OSes. For example, Linux or
Hurd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
