4 ms·

Don't know why the author calls it an OS, then acknowledges in the article it's not an OS. It was a windowing system, based on X, running on top of DOS, much li

by mftb 5y ago

Don't know why the author calls it an OS, then acknowledges in the article it's not an OS. It was a windowing system, based on X, running on top of DOS, much like Windows 3.1 did. Anyway it was cool, but strained common HW of the day. OS/2 was generally seen as the alternative. What do you call it when all the products from a particular moment are left behind?

mlyle 5y ago
> It was a windowing system, based on X, running on top of DOS, Ehhh.. DOS isn't much of an OS-- more of an abstraction layer over hardware. Desqview provided a significant extension by providing multitasking services and abstraction of the display device.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  There was an old hint that OS/2 is half an OS, and DOS is a boot sector virus.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
DOS is basically a bootloader program like grub at that point. People tend to forget how primitive it was. Not a whole lot different conceptually than a UEFI environment, but in "real mode" and minus the extended memory access. Netware was another server OS that reused it. I think even some Linux utils could load it from DOS. Both loaded themselves directly into memory right over DOS if memory serves, because it had no ability to stop you. So yes, an OS, at least the 99% that matters.
- anthk 5y ago
  >DOS is basically a bootloader program like grub at that point. People tend to forget how primitive it was No. A BIOS wrapper with an ABI.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    Yes. The products mentioned didn't use that, or if they did, once to load themselves.
    - anthk 5y ago
      Loadlin is another issue. On Windows 3.11, it depends. It runs perfectly on DOSBox, no DOS needed.
retrac 5y ago
Despite the refrain at the time that it wasn't an OS, in hindsight I feel that's a pretty tenuous claim. It just used DOS as a hardware abstraction layer. The Win16 API provides processes, memory management, IO abstractions, and many other OS-like features. Eventually in the late 3.1 era they'd even move the disk drivers and file system into the Windows kernel. (The so-called 32-bit disk access.) Similar for DV/X in many ways.

by mftb 5y ago

mlyle 5y ago

> It was a windowing system, based on X, running on top of DOS, Ehhh.. DOS isn't much of an OS-- more of an abstraction layer over hardware. Desqview provided a significant extension by providing multitasking services and abstraction of the display device.

aidenn0 5y ago
There was an old hint that OS/2 is half an OS, and DOS is a boot sector virus.

mixmastamyk 5y ago

DOS is basically a bootloader program like grub at that point. People tend to forget how primitive it was. Not a whole lot different conceptually than a UEFI environment, but in "real mode" and minus the extended memory access. Netware was another server OS that reused it. I think even some Linux utils could load it from DOS. Both loaded themselves directly into memory right over DOS if memory serves, because it had no ability to stop you. So yes, an OS, at least the 99% that matters.

anthk 5y ago
>DOS is basically a bootloader program like grub at that point. People tend to forget how primitive it was No. A BIOS wrapper with an ABI.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Yes. The products mentioned didn't use that, or if they did, once to load themselves.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Loadlin is another issue. On Windows 3.11, it depends. It runs perfectly on DOSBox, no DOS needed.

retrac 5y ago

Despite the refrain at the time that it wasn't an OS, in hindsight I feel that's a pretty tenuous claim. It just used DOS as a hardware abstraction layer. The Win16 API provides processes, memory management, IO abstractions, and many other OS-like features. Eventually in the late 3.1 era they'd even move the disk drivers and file system into the Windows kernel. (The so-called 32-bit disk access.) Similar for DV/X in many ways.