Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/07/26/11:31:31
Darren Noble wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, you wrote:
> > Saying its not an os if its loaded or run from DOS is right but,
> > working on the parts of a new os under an other more stable
> > one is a standard practice that I'm all for.
> >
> > * A tangent about win95 (not) being an os follows. *
> >
> > I agree that an environment hosted on, and using the services
> > or, an other os is NOT an os itself.
> > Win95 by this definition is NOT an os because it runs on DOS.
But, doesn't DOS use BIOS routines to read from the keyboard (when it could very
easily hook the interrupt). Doesn't it also use BIOS routines to do various tasks
like changing screen-modes and reading/writing from a hard-drive? Could it then be
said that DOS isn't an OS because it calls BIOS service routines?
--
-Rolf Campbell (39)3-6318
- Raw text -