4 ms·

Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then? I get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm that using x86 meant the use of some

by xattt 5y ago

Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then? I get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm that using x86 meant the use of some form of DOS as a back-end. Contrast to today, and there’s a post on HN every other week about implementing some hobby OS.

dotancohen 5y ago
Because DOS already did everything reliably and in a way that the users expect. If your window manager had any behaviour slightly different from DOS - such as using the current timestamp when copying a file - then users would notice and complain. That was a very long trail of behaviours to copy. Or just rely on DOS.
bluedino 5y ago
There were DOS clones and other operating systems back then. CP/M, DR-DOS (take a look at VIEWMAX), PC-MOS, VM/386... Part of the problem was you needed to get your OS on all the computers out there, most clone builders had agreements with Microsoft. The other was you needed DOS compatibility, or else you didn't have any software to run.
- coldacid 5y ago
  I wouldn't call CP/M and DR-DOS "clones" of MS-DOS. It's more the other way around: MS-DOS originated as a x86 clone of CP/M!
  - bluedino 5y ago
    I meant dos clones and other operating systems
simonh 5y ago
GEOS didn't really rely on DOS, it just used it as a launcher and for some basic I/O for compatibility's sake. It would have been trivial to cut loose from it, but why bother? Customers would just have worried that it wouldn't run on their 'DOS' computers.
- dfox 5y ago
  Essentially all DOS graphical extensions used DOS for filesystem implementation, including GEOS, and more notably Windows before the 3.1 (3.1 had user option in control panel to use Windows-native FAT implementation) and 9x (which could use DOS drivers essentially transparently, but primarily as a fallback). In fact, most 90's DOS software used DOS only for the FS access and maybe print spooling with every other kind of hardware being accessed directly.
  - simonh 5y ago
    True, file system compatibility is a really big deal.
  - lproven 5y ago
    I think you're remembering in an odd backwards fashion. Windows 3.1 had an option for "32-bit Disk Access" when running in 386 Enhanced Mode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_disk_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_disk_access Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (but not ordinary Win 3.11, nor any version of 3.1) also offered 32-bit File Access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_file_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_file_access So WfWg 3.11 -- and only that version -- could do 32-bit disk, filesystem and networking. DOS did have print spooling from v2.0, via the `PRINT` command, but very few DOS apps used that. https://home.csulb.edu/~murdock/print.html https://home.csulb.edu/~murdock/print.html DOS did not not include any form of printer drivers, making DOS printer access fairly useless to apps that could actually control the printer. DOS apps therefore mostly did their own printer control -- and spooling, if any -- so that they could use advanced features such as bold, underline, italics, small fonts or double-width fonts. Soft fonts appeared quite late on DOS; WordPerfect was quite famous for its advanced font and printer control. Scalable fonts only really came with Windows 3.1, which drove printers in graphics mode -- slow, noisy, and with poor print quality, but it enabled WYSIWYG.
a-dub 5y ago
> Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then? I get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm that using x86 meant the use of some form of DOS as a back-end. because that's all there was. sure there was crap like xenix and sco and later bsdi, and bespoke things like mwc coherent but nobody actually used any of those things really. when i was in high school i recycled an old 386 pc from the local university and set it up with linux and ip masquerade so that a single dial-up internet connection could be shared by a whole school computer lab. some rich kid's dad somehow got to take it home and then somehow got my phone number and then called me very angrily because i wouldn't tell him how to get out of this linux thing and so he could "drop to dos." most people didn't understand the idea of operating systems back then, dos and pcs were one and the same for most people. the idea that you could do something to your computer that would make it unable to run "pc compatible" software that you buy in boxes at the store was just utterly befuddling for the vast majority of pc users.

by xattt 5y ago

dotancohen 5y ago

Because DOS already did everything reliably and in a way that the users expect. If your window manager had any behaviour slightly different from DOS - such as using the current timestamp when copying a file - then users would notice and complain. That was a very long trail of behaviours to copy. Or just rely on DOS.

bluedino 5y ago

There were DOS clones and other operating systems back then. CP/M, DR-DOS (take a look at VIEWMAX), PC-MOS, VM/386... Part of the problem was you needed to get your OS on all the computers out there, most clone builders had agreements with Microsoft. The other was you needed DOS compatibility, or else you didn't have any software to run.

coldacid 5y ago
I wouldn't call CP/M and DR-DOS "clones" of MS-DOS. It's more the other way around: MS-DOS originated as a x86 clone of CP/M!
- bluedino 5y ago
  I meant dos clones and other operating systems

simonh 5y ago

GEOS didn't really rely on DOS, it just used it as a launcher and for some basic I/O for compatibility's sake. It would have been trivial to cut loose from it, but why bother? Customers would just have worried that it wouldn't run on their 'DOS' computers.

dfox 5y ago
Essentially all DOS graphical extensions used DOS for filesystem implementation, including GEOS, and more notably Windows before the 3.1 (3.1 had user option in control panel to use Windows-native FAT implementation) and 9x (which could use DOS drivers essentially transparently, but primarily as a fallback). In fact, most 90's DOS software used DOS only for the FS access and maybe print spooling with every other kind of hardware being accessed directly.
- simonh 5y ago
  True, file system compatibility is a really big deal.
- lproven 5y ago
  I think you're remembering in an odd backwards fashion. Windows 3.1 had an option for "32-bit Disk Access" when running in 386 Enhanced Mode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_disk_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_disk_access Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (but not ordinary Win 3.11, nor any version of 3.1) also offered 32-bit File Access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_file_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_file_access So WfWg 3.11 -- and only that version -- could do 32-bit disk, filesystem and networking. DOS did have print spooling from v2.0, via the `PRINT` command, but very few DOS apps used that. https://home.csulb.edu/~murdock/print.html https://home.csulb.edu/~murdock/print.html DOS did not not include any form of printer drivers, making DOS printer access fairly useless to apps that could actually control the printer. DOS apps therefore mostly did their own printer control -- and spooling, if any -- so that they could use advanced features such as bold, underline, italics, small fonts or double-width fonts. Soft fonts appeared quite late on DOS; WordPerfect was quite famous for its advanced font and printer control. Scalable fonts only really came with Windows 3.1, which drove printers in graphics mode -- slow, noisy, and with poor print quality, but it enabled WYSIWYG.

a-dub 5y ago

> Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then? I get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm that using x86 meant the use of some form of DOS as a back-end. because that's all there was. sure there was crap like xenix and sco and later bsdi, and bespoke things like mwc coherent but nobody actually used any of those things really. when i was in high school i recycled an old 386 pc from the local university and set it up with linux and ip masquerade so that a single dial-up internet connection could be shared by a whole school computer lab. some rich kid's dad somehow got to take it home and then somehow got my phone number and then called me very angrily because i wouldn't tell him how to get out of this linux thing and so he could "drop to dos." most people didn't understand the idea of operating systems back then, dos and pcs were one and the same for most people. the idea that you could do something to your computer that would make it unable to run "pc compatible" software that you buy in boxes at the store was just utterly befuddling for the vast majority of pc users.