4 ms·

That “niche” you described was actually a desktop computing norm form more than a decade. Let’s also not forget RISC OS, Atari TOS, AmigaOS, GEOS, SkyOS and nu

That “niche” you described was actually a desktop computing norm form more than a decade. Let’s also not forget RISC OS, Atari TOS, AmigaOS, GEOS, SkyOS and numerous DOS frontends including, but not limited to, Microsoft Windows.

nullindividual 2y ago
Isn't Windows more abstract than just a frontend[0]? I.e., Windows/386 added protected mode and other features. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versio...
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  To be honest I was being flippant with that Windows remark but you’re right to call me out for it. Microsoft get a lot of stick but Windows of the 90s do bring a lot to table. And by 9x DOS was basically a boot loader.
- torginus 2y ago
  Yeah, this was a common misconception - due to the fact you could boot into Windows (up to 95) from DOS, people assumed it was just a frontend program.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    Not just up to 95, you could boot into Windows ME from DOS too. But I agree that DOS was effectively just a bootloader for the 9x era of Windows. I was just being flippant in my previous post however you guys are right to call me on it.
kev009 2y ago
I believe we are obliquely agreeing. To further my thoughts a bit, the distinction I would place on OS/2 over DOS is double: 1) first class memory protection 2) full preemptive multitasking. The distinction I would place against all widely used modern desktop OSes is the lack of first class multi-user support. Early Windows gains cooperative multi-tasking like Mac OS classic but neither fundamentally use memory protection the way later OSes normalize and that turns out to be a pretty clear dead end. I believe there are extensions for both that retrofit protection in. Both also have some add on approaches to multi-user but are not first class designs. So, even the most robust single user system that implements full memory protection and preemptive multitasking still seems to be stuck in a valley. I.e. whatever the actual cost in terms of implementation and increase in cognitive workload for single user systems (i.e. "enter your administrative password" prompts on current macOS or Windows administrative accept dialogs) seems to be accepted by the masses. And note that this isn't an implicit a negative judgement, for instance I find BeOS or those in your list can be absolutely fascinating. And OS/2 is lovely even today for certain niche or retrocomputing things. Just pointing out that NT made a better bet for the long term, and some of that undoubtedly related to the difference of a couple years.. keep in mind OS/2 ran on a 286, which NT completely bypassed.
- nullindividual 2y ago
  Windows 2.0 for i386 was the first to introduce protected mode and preemptive multitasking. These features had to wait for Intel but it was available in 1987.
  - kev009 2y ago
    In a limited sense, yes, Windows (without NT) increasingly /used/ memory protection hardware over its life but never in a holistic approach as we typically understand today to create a TCB. I don't believe Windows 2.0 implemented preemptive tasking, can you show a reference so I can learn?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jazzypants 2y ago
      I'm not that guy, but the Wikipedia article[1] is a decent jumping-off point, but I also found this blog article[2] talking about the different versions-- although it seems to get a couple things wrong according to discussion about it on lobste.rs[3] Finally, this long article from Another Boring Topic [4] includes several great sources. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0#Release_versions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0#Release_versions 2 - https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html 3 - https://lobste.rs/s/4xfswa/what_was_difference_between_windows https://lobste.rs/s/4xfswa/what_was_difference_between_windo... 4 - https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-microsoft-windows-2x https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-micros...
      - lproven 2y ago
        That's my blog post -- thanks for the link. The Lobsters discussion was very interesting. Some people in there were extremely knowledgeable, but also very confrontational. Coming straight in going "that's all wrong!" is not a productive way to start a discussion IMHO. I didn't get any very firm conclusions from it. There are some very knowledgeable people out there on the WWW claiming, with convincing arguments, that Windows/286 couldn't run in 286 mode and only gave you 640kB ("conventional memory" in DOS terminology)+ 64kB HMA. Others, including from Microsoft, say no, Windows/286 did run in protect mode and could access 16MB of (segmented) RAM. I do not know for sure who is right.
hypercube33 2y ago
How dare you ignore BeOS which isn't Windows or Nix
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  It had already been mentioned and the point of my post was to give other examples

nullindividual 2y ago

Isn't Windows more abstract than just a frontend[0]? I.e., Windows/386 added protected mode and other features. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versio...

hnlmorg 2y ago
To be honest I was being flippant with that Windows remark but you’re right to call me out for it. Microsoft get a lot of stick but Windows of the 90s do bring a lot to table. And by 9x DOS was basically a boot loader.
torginus 2y ago
Yeah, this was a common misconception - due to the fact you could boot into Windows (up to 95) from DOS, people assumed it was just a frontend program.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  Not just up to 95, you could boot into Windows ME from DOS too. But I agree that DOS was effectively just a bootloader for the 9x era of Windows. I was just being flippant in my previous post however you guys are right to call me on it.

kev009 2y ago

I believe we are obliquely agreeing. To further my thoughts a bit, the distinction I would place on OS/2 over DOS is double: 1) first class memory protection 2) full preemptive multitasking. The distinction I would place against all widely used modern desktop OSes is the lack of first class multi-user support. Early Windows gains cooperative multi-tasking like Mac OS classic but neither fundamentally use memory protection the way later OSes normalize and that turns out to be a pretty clear dead end. I believe there are extensions for both that retrofit protection in. Both also have some add on approaches to multi-user but are not first class designs. So, even the most robust single user system that implements full memory protection and preemptive multitasking still seems to be stuck in a valley. I.e. whatever the actual cost in terms of implementation and increase in cognitive workload for single user systems (i.e. "enter your administrative password" prompts on current macOS or Windows administrative accept dialogs) seems to be accepted by the masses. And note that this isn't an implicit a negative judgement, for instance I find BeOS or those in your list can be absolutely fascinating. And OS/2 is lovely even today for certain niche or retrocomputing things. Just pointing out that NT made a better bet for the long term, and some of that undoubtedly related to the difference of a couple years.. keep in mind OS/2 ran on a 286, which NT completely bypassed.

nullindividual 2y ago
Windows 2.0 for i386 was the first to introduce protected mode and preemptive multitasking. These features had to wait for Intel but it was available in 1987.
- kev009 2y ago
  In a limited sense, yes, Windows (without NT) increasingly /used/ memory protection hardware over its life but never in a holistic approach as we typically understand today to create a TCB. I don't believe Windows 2.0 implemented preemptive tasking, can you show a reference so I can learn?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jazzypants 2y ago
    I'm not that guy, but the Wikipedia article[1] is a decent jumping-off point, but I also found this blog article[2] talking about the different versions-- although it seems to get a couple things wrong according to discussion about it on lobste.rs[3] Finally, this long article from Another Boring Topic [4] includes several great sources. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0#Release_versions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0#Release_versions 2 - https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html 3 - https://lobste.rs/s/4xfswa/what_was_difference_between_windows https://lobste.rs/s/4xfswa/what_was_difference_between_windo... 4 - https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-microsoft-windows-2x https://anotherboringtopic.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-micros...
    - lproven 2y ago
      That's my blog post -- thanks for the link. The Lobsters discussion was very interesting. Some people in there were extremely knowledgeable, but also very confrontational. Coming straight in going "that's all wrong!" is not a productive way to start a discussion IMHO. I didn't get any very firm conclusions from it. There are some very knowledgeable people out there on the WWW claiming, with convincing arguments, that Windows/286 couldn't run in 286 mode and only gave you 640kB ("conventional memory" in DOS terminology)+ 64kB HMA. Others, including from Microsoft, say no, Windows/286 did run in protect mode and could access 16MB of (segmented) RAM. I do not know for sure who is right.

hypercube33 2y ago

How dare you ignore BeOS which isn't Windows or Nix

hnlmorg 2y ago
It had already been mentioned and the point of my post was to give other examples