Sender:	"Rolf Campbell" <cp1v45 AT nortelnetworks DOT com>
Message-ID:	<379C7F3C.5FEFA3C2@americasm01.nt.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:31:08 -0400
From:	"Rolf Campbell" <cp1v45 AT nortelnetworks DOT com>
Organization:	Nortel Networks
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: **MAKING OS**
References:	<379939BC DOT 11DC1FDB AT home DOT com> <99072608244400 DOT 00586 AT dome DOT calderathin DOT com>
X-Orig:	<cp1v45 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

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 -