5 ms·
Where does that come from that a fraction of computing history is dismissed as "not a real OS" ? Did "real" OS's exist for the IBM PC?
by blueflow 2y ago
Where does that come from that a fraction of computing history is dismissed as "not a real OS" ? Did "real" OS's exist for the IBM PC?
- icedchai 2y agoI put real in quotes. I probably should've said "OS of sufficient level of complexity."
- blueflow 2y agoOr name the features directly: "my first OS with multitasking and memory management"
- icedchai 2y agoI did name the features directly.
- exe34 2y ago[flagged]
- blueflow 2y agoYes. Negative. Being an expert in a field and thus being sensitive to semantics and autism are orthogonal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exe34 2y agosome level of socialising often blunts the petulant need for the security of exact nomenclature outside of a technical publication, hence the question. it's interesting that you did get tested though. it suggests this isn't the first time.
- hub_ 2y agoOS/2 comes to mind. Version 1.x was already much more sophisticated than MS-DOS.
- pjmlp 2y agoAnd Xenix.
- blueflow 2y agoFor you two: The IBM PC was the first PC and had a 8088 CPU. OS/2 and Xenix were for the 286 and up. If you make virtual memory a necessary attribute to qualify as OS, there were no OS for the original IBM PC as the 8088 had no support for virtual memory. That's why my (tricky) question.