Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Nope, it's only been an OS in it's own right since NT, which was based on OS/2.

Windows 95/98/98SE/ME ran on DOS as well (but were 32 bit).

Originally Posted by dave@burn-it.co.uk Since Windows 95 it has been an OS in its own right.

I did say the word "originally" didn't I David?

Furthermore, once Windows 95/98/ME were actually loaded up, yes Windows was the OS. But there was still plenty of MS-DOS there as well, for supporting MS-DOS based software and drivers, etc.

It was not until Windows 2000 that M$ moved to Windows NT and even then, you still needed Windows XP "Professional Edition" to get NTFS file and folder permissions. That just goes to show how serious;y M$ took the matter of security.

But in Linux (and UNIX in general) those sort of things have always been there by default.

Bill Gates left/sold out when he realised the the management team were more interested in making money from Windows than providing a decent OS

Ah, David, Microsoft corporation... what does that tell you? I know what it tells me...

It's always been about making money, hello?

None of those needed DOS to be installed to run.
They certainly used a lot of old DOS techniques, but so did NT and code based on that. If you look closely at Linux you will find a lot of code that uss techniques found in DOS.
That is not necessarily a bad thing since what is the point of inventing a new way of doing things when the existing methods do a good job.

Originally Posted by dave@burn-it.co.uk None of those needed DOS to be installed to run. ...

Who said they did?

And I almost forgot... now that was that Bill Gates once said... oh, that right, "if you want to use my software, I expect you to pay for it". Thanks for reminding me dave...

Originally Posted by dave@burn-it.co.uk None of those needed DOS to be installed to run.

I can assure you that they did. Though Windows 9x didn't rely on DOS real mode device drivers, it did require DOS (v7.x as I recall) in order to run. But unlike Windows 3.x, once the "OS" actually executed (the MSDOS "win.com" command) there were no more DOS system calls.

Originally Posted by anisoptera I can assure you that they did. Though Windows 9x didn't rely on DOS real mode device drivers, it did require DOS (v7.x as I recall) in order to run. But unlike Windows 3.x, once the "OS" actually executed (the MSDOS "win.com" command) there were no more DOS system calls.

And also, the Windows 1/2/3.x versions, you had to install MS-DOS to run (and install) those versions of Windows. But Windows 95/98/ME the "DOS" part of the OS was included and installed along with Windows itself.

Originally Posted by anisoptera Nope, it's only been an OS in it's own right since NT, which was based on OS/2. Windows 95/98/98SE/ME ran on DOS as well (but were 32 bit).

Strictly speaking, OS/2 and Windows-NT were separate, mostly-parallel projects that did benefit from one another, although the respective corporate environments proved incompatible. IBM took OS/2 its own way – you still find it popping-up in ATMs everywhere – and Microsoft did the same.

The first few "32-bit Windows" versions were "terrible 'thunks.'" But, when the NT kernel finally became stable, it mercifully replaced the DOS-layer with little ado. Microsoft fared much better, post-XP, in releasing a 64-bit base layer, but, in all these years, they still haven't persuaded their Marketing Department to "buzz off!!"

Even to this day, and indeed, "especially with Windows-10," the single biggest obstacle to Microsoft's technical success is ... Microsoft Corporation, itself.

Do YOU have the rights to Windows?

Nope! M$ does...

Can you "view" the source, like hell ya can!!

But Linux/and alike...

YES!! You can!

AND
Around 90% of all supercomputers run Linux, what does that tell ya? That Linux is king of course!!
And servers, IoT devices, firmware, etc, etc!

Oh, just one more time for good measure... M$'s own Azure cloud service!

M$ just sucks and Linux is just better, full stop!! Forget Windoze!!!
If your using M$ now, you will soon see a BSOD!!!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Strictly speaking, OS/2 and Windows-NT were separate, mostly-parallel projects that did benefit from one another[etc]

No, OS/2 was a joint IBM and MS project from the mid 80's until the split, around '90 or '91 as I recall. MS effectively forked to develop it's own "NT" from "NT OS/2", but still primarily kept the focus on selling the Windows 3.x crap.

jsbjsb001, yes DOS 7.x (and I think 6.3 in 95?) came with all Windows 9x variants. With 16 bit 3.11 and earlier you needed an existing DOS installation. I think it was something like DOS 6.2 around the time of Windows 3.1.

Originally Posted by anisoptera No, OS/2 was a joint IBM and MS project from the mid 80's until the split, around '90 or '91 as I recall. MS effectively forked to develop it's own "NT" from "NT OS/2", but still primarily kept the focus on selling the Windows 3.x crap. jsbjsb001, yes DOS 7.x (and I think 6.3 in 95?) came with all Windows 9x variants. With 16 bit 3.11 and earlier you needed an existing DOS installation. I think it was something like DOS 6.2 around the time of Windows 3.1.

Yeah that's how I've read it.

Don't know about the DOS version in the Windows 9x versions, but I'd say what you said sounds about right to me.
Yep, and it was DOS 6.22 (for Win 3.1/3.11).

Originally Posted by anisoptera No, OS/2 was a joint IBM and MS project from the mid 80's until the split, around '90 or '91 as I recall. MS effectively forked to develop it's own "NT" from "NT OS/2", but still primarily kept the focus on selling the Windows 3.x crap.

To be more precise, the split mainly came to place because Microsoft added support for Windows API to the NT OS/2 system, IBM didn't like that at all. That made the early NT kernels rather cool, from a technical point of view: They supported not only 16 Bit- Windows 3.x software, but also (text-mode) OS/2 software and even POSIX-compliant software.

Regarding Windows and Bluescreens: since Vista I do not remember seeing a bluescreen that was not caused by either faulty hardware (my rough estimate: about 98%), very low quality third party software (drivers for cheap USB gadgets, mostly) or "freak accidents" (having a power outage while installing antivirus software or other software that hooks into kernel functions can do some really weird stuff to your OS). I have to use Windows for work and my Windows 10 runs in a VM on top of Ubuntu 16.04, I never have seen a bluescreen with that.

Originally Posted by dave@burn-it.co.uk If you look closely at Linux you will find a lot of code that uss techniques found in DOS. That is not necessarily a bad thing since what is the point of inventing a new way of doing things when the existing methods do a good job.

Not quite. Linux started as a Unix clone. DOS took things from Unix, changed a few things for unknown reasons (just to be different? Like \path instead of /path), oversimplified things (kept the date stamp on files, but removed ownership, removed case sensivity, introduced 8.3 file names).
So if you write "you find a lot of code in Linux which you find in DOS as well", it is because DOS half-heartedly copied some code from Unix. Definitely not the other way around.
Surprisingly though, under the hood (that is, looking at the implementation) DOS was not implemented that bad. Using software interrupts (int21) for all hardware access was very clean. Unfortunately, because there no protection at all for writing directly to the hardware, and the hardware specs of the IBM PC were open and became de facto standard, virtually all applications wrote directly to hardware. But that was not DOS to blame.

jlinkels

As far as I know 'DOS' took virtually nothing from UNIX.

MSDOS/PCDOS actually came into being when MS acquired 86-DOS from a small US company. 86-DOS was already being developed to emulate CP/M's API and other aspects, when Gates and Allen approached them. CP/M's developer had already told IBM and MS "no thanks", the rest is history...

And MSDOS/PCDOS was developed from 86-DOS specifically as a CP/M rip off. IBM and MS managed to avoid lawsuits from CP/M's developer by doing a deal, but still succeeded in killing off CP/M by offering PCDOS for much cheaper. And so began the MS monopoly...

DOS was a subset of OS not Unix and was around before PCs were invented.
I was using DOS in 1969.

Yep, one such example was IBM's DOS/360 or 'DOS' as it was simply called back then.