Message-ID: <379939BC.11DC1FDB@home.com>
From: Mark & Candice White <mhewii AT home DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: **MAKING OS**
References: <005701bed52b$51adb080$1d7336ce AT sandrajo> <99072312322800 DOT 00951 AT dome DOT calderathin DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 58
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:57:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.127.127
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace: news.rdc1.mi.home.com 932788646 24.0.127.127 (Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:57:26 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:57:26 PDT
Organization: @Home Network
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

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.
If you don't believe me go to caldera's web sight and look at the
info they showed the judge in their case against MS.  They showed
that by loading a 7k TSR to add the 'key' win95 was looking for to
their DRDOS your could run win95 on it. They also showed that
with win95a the majority or the 'system time' was spend using the
underlying os's routines!

Darren Noble wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, you wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: IOnet News <logix AT ionet DOT net>
> > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> > To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 12:52 PM
> > Subject: **MAKING OS**
> >
> >
> > > I am trying to write my own o/s in c++, i really dont know where to start.
> > > I am an advanced c++ programmer
> >
> > are you sure?
> >
> > >but never tried an OS.  any help would be
> > > great.  I want it to run under dos maybe, but not for sure.   It would be
> > > good if it could run all on its own
> >
> >
> > DOS is an OS.  therefore, if you write an OS, it cannot run under DOS.  e.g.
> > Windows 95 does not run UNDER DOS, it allows you to spawn a very special
> > VM86 machine that runs DOS.
> >
> > you should probably start by looking at FreeDOS, OS/2000, and MMURTL, all
> > good and free OSes.
> >
> >     -={C}=-
>
> actualy WIn 95 does run under DOS there for it technicly isn't an OS.
> --
> Linux Rules
>
> Darren 'The' Noble

--
Mark & Candice White
System programming hobbyists.
http://members.home.net/mhewii/welcome.htm