To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:10:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Using Loader with DRDOS and WIN95 Message-ID: <20000126.191313.-953941.0.editor@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-141 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: Bruce Morgen Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:12:50 +0100 (MET) Bernie writes: > Bruce wrote: > >Sorry, you're logic here > >eludes me. Are you implying > >that the "bugfix" is to a > >DOS component and not some > >part of the GUI? > > To be able to even run the bug fix I need to start in "Normal MS-DOS > mode" and then run win.com That points toward the bugfix being in some aspect of the GUI, which makes sense with my view that the 32-bit API(s) are loaded with the GUI, not with DOS 7. > > >Your hardware doesn't seem > >to support enough IRQ > >alternatives, can't blame > >that on Windoze. It have a > >similarly crowded card > >collection -- NIC, modem, > >two active serial ports, > >IRQ/DMA-hungry sound card, > >SCSI controller, Sony > >proprietary CD-ROM interface > >-- with no conflicts at all. > > But since I do NOT have any conflicts in DOS I CAN blaim Windows for > this! > All of a sudden several IRQs are used fror various tasks - but > neither the > BIOS nor DOS will see these components. > > >Sure, but DOS isn't really > >an operating system, it's a > >sort of extended monitor > >with disk access -- warm- > >over CP/M with a few Unix- > >like enhancements. It has > >virtually no overhead > >because (outside of things > >like device drivers and > >memory managers) it's > >pretty much idle until its > >called on to do something. > > And why is it then not an OS? Because, like CP/M, it really doesn't take or retain true control of the hardware. This is part of the classical, pre-microprocessor view of what comprises an operating system, I have no problem if you prefer the looser, post- microprocessor definition, which would indeed encompass DOS and CP/M. >This time your logic eludes me. > Besides, wasn't CP/M a UNIX clone? Not even close! From the operator's point of view, it resembles some of the early proprietary DEC minicomputer operating systems, but internally it is a relatively simple beast. The generic portions of CP/M 2.2, the BDOS (Basic Disk Operating System) and CCP (Console Command Processor) comprise a *total of 5.5 K of code*! Even the most compact version of a UNIX kernel dwarfs it, and a modern version of DOS is *huge* by comparison. > Anyway I really doubt that an OS is a program that constantly keeps > your > computer busy wheter you use it or not. None of the information I've > read has stated that DOS isn't an OS. It's not that an OS keeps the hardware terribly occupied, but rather the aforementioned taking and retaining of hardware control. > > >Multitaskers like Windoze > >and UNIX are active all the > >time and are much more CPU- > >intensive -- of course they > >actually retain control of > >the hardware, whereas > >single-task, non-reentrant > >stuff like DOS pretty much > >steps aside and lets the > >app of the moment take > >control. > > But why do anything when nothing is supposed to be done? IMHO that's > very useless, and I doubt anyone will disagree with me on that. Keeping control of the hardware is what allows multi-tasking (and therefore simulataneous multi-user) operation. If it's done efficiently, it well worth the CPU overhead. The reason DOS (like CP/M before it) seems efficient is because it really does very little, thus incurring no appeciable overhead. If you have no need for multi-whatever or a sound/graphics-capable API, by all means work with DOS -- I used a souped-up CP/M clone well into the '90s for the same reason you like DOS, then I realized that I could work more efficiently via smart use of multi-tasking at about the same time that 486s became reasonably cheap.... __________________________________________________ http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.