BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 6d, 21h, 19m | CPU: 37% | MEM: 2436MB of 4289MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

Windows versions 1.0 - 3.11 are?
Operating Environments 76%  76%  [ 28 ]
Operating Systems 22%  22%  [ 8 ]
Other (or I'll make one up) 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 37
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 1.0 - 3.11 classification        Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:33 am

Posts
170

Location
EV-ERY-ONE!

Favourite OS
IRIX 6.5.22
I've been contemplating what the exact role of Windows versions prior to Windows 95 and NT 3.1 was. What I mean by this is do you classify these versions of Windows as Operating Systems, Operating Environments, Desktop Environments or something else?
Personally after thinking about it I classify these versions of Windows as "Operating Environments" similar to the relationship between SunOS and Solaris. Solaris is an Operating Environment made up of:
SunOS and its UNIX specific tools
X11
Motif
CDE or JDS (based on GNOME)

What do you think, or have you though about it?

_________________
IRIX enthusiast | OSBA refugee
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:52 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Operating environment.

It's not an operating system because it can't be booted by itself, it needs DOS.
It's not a desktop environment IMHO because it's more than a simple program running on top of DOS, it has own drivers, etc.

But I'd not call it an OS unless I were a MS marketing guy back in the early 90s :)

off-topic: Your post reminds me that I just have to install Solaris 10 again someday. For some reason, it kinda fascinates me (but to be honest, every Unix does).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:40 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
I'd personally have to split these systems. I'd Say 1 & 2 aren't even environments, they're just DOS, where as 3 was a big step forward and even on the border of OE/OS

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:50 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:45 pm

Posts
1432

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Longhorn 4074
For me it's operating environment :)


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:14 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1520

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
its a shiny new DOS shell

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:05 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:10 pm

Posts
139

Location
Germania
Its a Dos Like with better Gui and more bugs ^^


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:35 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:41 am

Posts
140

Location
New York
Or DOS GUI x86


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:10 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:37 pm

Posts
73

Favourite OS
Windows 7 RC1 (Build 7100)
This really depends on whether to be an OS, it needs to be bootable.
I would say 1.0-2.0 are OEs or shells, 3.1 is an OS, even though non-bootable, it has a whole load of features that DOS/Win 1/Win 2 do not have [remember, all of the 9x line relied on DOS for operation, so they could all be called DOS 'abstraction layers'].


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:55 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Richard0612 wrote:
it has a whole load of features that DOS/Win 1/Win 2 do not have

What does that have to do with anything? It's like saying OS9 is not an OS, but OSX is because it has a lot of features OS9 doesn't.

Bootability isn't a measure, since many operating systems can be started from others. Debian Linux is an OS, isn't it? It's not bootable on old world PowerPC Macs, because of their architecture, and thus has to be started from within Mac OS.

Windows 1.x and 2.x have their own API, their own executable loaders, their own interface, and IMO they're operating systems. Using DOS (or the BIOS, for that matter, as most of the DOS drivers are in the BIOS) for disk access doesn't make them shells. Even Windows ME can use DOS for disk access if it doesn't have 32-bit drivers.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:19 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:44 am

Posts
98

Location
Port Orchard, WA
Operating enviroment.

With the exception of WfWG 3.11, I see that as an OS in many ways. Besides, with MSDOS 7.10, it can boot directly into windows (without the need of WIN in AUTOEXEC.BAT)

Today in my class, My teacher made a test with one of the true/False questions being: Windows 1.00 was a true Operating Environment and she incorrectly had false as the possible answer.


Top  Profile  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:49 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am

Posts
722

Favourite OS
SVR 2012R2/Win10
To be quite honest, I consider Windows 2.0 386, 3.0, and 3.1/3.11 to be Operating Systems - Why? Because these versions support Protected Mode.

I feel that whoever is managing your resources is your boss - in this case, all previous versions of Windows used DOS for all memory managment - hence, they were Operating Environments. With the onset of the 386 CPU in 1985/1986, Windows was now able to manage its own resources- which made it a true operating system. Sure, EMM386 was a DOS app, but it set up the basic groundwork for the protected mode code in Windows.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:03 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:01 am

Posts
79
Quote:
<operating> (OS) The low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no application program is running.

The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and various system programs which use facilities provided by the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting as servers in a client-server relationship.

http://foldoc.org/?operating+system


DOS and Windows 3+ were operating systems because they fulfill all of the above criteria: low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware (through drivers), schedules tasks (note that DOS only had one task [ignoring TSRs], yet nobody would argue it's not an OS!), allocates storage (Windows had it's own file system drivers and it's own memory manager that enabled access to more memory than DOS could).

Windows 1 and 2 do not satisfy this criteria and so they operating environments or shells.

An operating system is basically a resource manager (hardware, memory, processor, tasks, etc.). There is no rule which says you can't run an operating system on top of another operating system.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:07 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
rawr wrote:
An operating system is basically a resource manager (hardware, memory, processor, tasks, etc.). There is no rule which says you can't run an operating system on top of another operating system.

If so, then neither DOS nor Windows 1-3 (excluding PM versions) are true operating systems. Both used the BIOS for interfacing with most of the hardware.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:24 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:01 am

Posts
79
ppc_digger wrote:
rawr wrote:
An operating system is basically a resource manager (hardware, memory, processor, tasks, etc.). There is no rule which says you can't run an operating system on top of another operating system.

If so, then neither DOS nor Windows 1-3 (excluding PM versions) are true operating systems. Both used the BIOS for interfacing with most of the hardware.


I don't think many knowledgeable people would argue with you about those being true operating systems :) I've heard of DOS being called a glorified boot loader more than once. There's certainly a special case of definitions lurking here.

The key is resource abstraction and management. DOS abstracts over some resources (e.g. it lets you write text to the screen), but it doesn't abstract over a huge class of other resources (e.g. video access). To access the non DOS-abstracted resources, you would use a secondary interface (e.g. motherboard BIOS, video BIOS, etc.), or direct hardware access.

This lack of a single, unified application programming interface (API), one that manages and protects access to all system resources, is why many people do not consider DOS or pre-WinNT (i.e. 16/32bit DOS/Windows hybrids) to be "true" operating systems. It's why DOS and pre-WinNT applications ran into so many problems: there were too many ways to do the same things. Often the assumptions involved in doing things one way would conflict with the assumptions required in doing things the other way; typically this conflict resulted in system instability or a crash. (Co-incidently, this lack of standards and consistency is why WinNT compatibility with old applications is such a tough thing to achieve.) With WinNT, if a resource did not have an abstraction in the API, you could not access it. Within the API, all resources were protected from other users of the resource, and followed a single programming standard.

Summary: DOS and pre-WinNT Windows systems were 'hybrid' operating systems: applications usually needed to use multiple APIs to get work done (e.g. BIOS + DOS + Win16). Windows NT, with it's singular Win32 API, was the first 'true' operating system created by Microsoft (there was Xenix, but Microsoft did not create it). (Before anybody says anything: yes, there was and still is support for the POSIX and OS/2 APIs, but they are implemented under Win32, which is the core API).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
rawr wrote:
Summary: DOS and pre-WinNT Windows systems were 'hybrid' operating systems: applications usually needed to use multiple APIs to get work done (e.g. BIOS + DOS + Win16). Windows NT, with it's singular Win32 API, was the first 'true' operating system created by Microsoft (there was Xenix, but Microsoft did not create it). (Before anybody says anything: yes, there was and still is support for the POSIX and OS/2 APIs, but they are implemented under Win32, which is the core API).

A few quick corrections:
A) Windows NT wasn't created by Microsoft alone either. It originally developed by both Microsoft and IBM as OS/2 3.0. After Windows 3.0 came out and became so popular, Microsoft left IBM, took its share of the code and developed it into Windows NT 3.1, while IBM continued to develop its share into OS/2 Warp 3.
B) The OS/2 and POSIX APIs aren't implemented on top of Win32, as Win32 isn't the native API either. Windows NT is made out of subsystems, which run on top of an undocumented kernel-usermode API. There are five (as of XP): Win32, WinCon (same as Win32, but for text-based apps), OS/2, POSIX and WinDDK (for drivers). Additionally, there are NTVDM (DOS emulator), which runs on top of WinCon, and WoW16 (Win16 compatibility layer), which runs on top of Win32 and NTVDM. The OS/2 and POSIX subsystems are not available on XP Home Edition, and WoW16 and NTVDM are not available on non-x86 editions.
C) All Windows version implemented abstraction layers, which grew bigger with each release. By the time of Windows 3.0, it was possible to access almost all the computer's hardware without any direct interfaces, as without such an abstraction layer, PM Windows would have no use.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:54 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:01 am

Posts
79
A. I was referring to the fact that both the MS-DOS (SCP's QDOS and later IBM's PC-DOS) and Xenix code bases were originally licensed from other companies. That being said, for fun I'll play devil's advocate and disagree that IBM was particularly relevant w.r.t. WinNT :D

As you note, the partnership between MS and IBM fell apart and at this point, and goals changed dramatically: from direct OS/2 compatibility to direct Windows compatibility, and OS/2 compatibility as a feature in a separate subsystem. This required a redesign. The primary architect and lead developer for Windows NT, Dave Cutler, was a Microsoft man. From the point where the partnership dissolved, Windows NT was exclusively Microsoft. The product that was released was basically all-Microsoft (except of course the OS/2 stuff and perhaps some of the architectural ideas). (Consider that IBM would never have bothered writing Windows-compatible code until that point, yet upon release, Windows NT was virtually *all* Windows code.)

B.1. Win32 isn't the native API, but it is still tightly integrated into the OS:

Quote:
As we'll explain shortly, of the three, the Windows [Win32] subsystem is special in that Windows can't run without it. (It owns the keyboard, mouse, and display, and it is required to be present even on server systems with no interactive users logged in.) In fact, the other two subsystems [POSIX & OS/2] are configured to start on demand, whereas the Windows subsystem must always be running.


B.2. Oops; I meant to say that POSIX and OS/2 are dependent on Win32:

Quote:
Although Windows was designed to support multiple, independent environment subsystems, from a practical perspective, having each subsystem implement all the code to handle windowing and display I/O would result in a large amount of duplication of system functions that, ultimately, would have negatively affected both system size and performance.

Because Windows was the primary subsystem, the Windows designers decided to locate these basic functions there and have the other subsystems call on the Windows subsystem to perform display I/O. Thus, the POSIX and OS/2 subsystems call services in the Windows subsystem to perform display I/O. (In fact, if you examine the subsystem type for these images, you'll see that they are Windows executables.)


When I said that Win32 is the core API, that's not strictly true. It's my opinion however that if you study NT enough you'll realize that the vast majority of the NT functions map directly onto Win32 functions. In particular, stuff like memory, process, registry and file management -- all the stuff that the POSIX and OS/2 subsystems use as part of the NT API. This is a consequence of the decision to merge many kernel and userspace APIs together for increased performance, but if you look at operating systems research, these things ideally ought to sit in a separate userspace layer by themselves, and that layer would define the "Windows OS" API, with the various GUI and subsystems underneath. Of course, this is all speculation from a wannabe OS architect ;)

Quotes from Microsoft Windows Internals, 4e (Russinovich & Solomon)

C. Right, but in reality, from Windows/386 2.1 (first PM Windows) through to Windows XP (first home OS based on NT architecture), it took 13 years for those APIs to mature (e.g. DirectX), and to ween people (and developers) off their legacy apps (that depended on those direct and secondary interfaces). Even then people complained about incompatibility :) Those 'hybrid' OSs like 95 and 98 were necessary stepping stones, IMO. (And of course, tons of innovation was developed along the way, separately, in the consumer and server systems.)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:38 pm 
Reply with quote
Hey Guys.....

If you wanna try them..
I have the download links here.

All passwords are livewings.

Windows 1.01 to Windows 1.04

http://rapidshare.com/files/27117226/Windows_1.01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27117324/Windows_1.02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27117444/Windows_1.03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27117562/Windows_1.04.rar

Windows 2.0 to Windows 2.1

http://rapidshare.com/files/27117735/Windows_2.0.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27118072/Windows_2.03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27120138/Windows_286.rar => Windows 2.1
http://rapidshare.com/files/27120278/Windows_386.rar => Windows 2.1

Windows 3.0 to Windows For Workgroups 3.11

http://rapidshare.com/files/27119206/Windows_3.0.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27121566/Wi ... g_1.0a.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27122270/Windows_3.1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27266013/Wi ... s_3.11.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/27266537/Wi ... ps_3.1.rar


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:41 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Thanks for the links, but
a) this is off-topic.
b) I am quite sure these are all on the ftp server.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:42 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
rawr wrote:
(It owns the keyboard, mouse, and display, and it is required to be present even on server systems with no interactive users logged in.) In fact, the other two subsystems [POSIX & OS/2] are configured to start on demand, whereas the Windows subsystem must always be running.

That's only because most of the basic user-mode services make use of the Win32 API.

rawr wrote:
Because Windows was the primary subsystem, the Windows designers decided to locate these basic functions there and have the other subsystems call on the Windows subsystem to perform display I/O. Thus, the POSIX and OS/2 subsystems call services in the Windows subsystem to perform display I/O.
First, you're contradicting yourself:
rawr wrote:
It's my opinion however that if you study NT enough you'll realize that the vast majority of the NT functions map directly onto Win32 functions.

If most low-level NT functions map directly onto Win32 functions, then the low-level NT functions are the ones the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems call, not the Win32 functions. Why go through two abstraction layers, when you can go through one without losing any functionality?

As I said, most user-mode services (mouse, keyboard, etc.) are written in Win32 API, so other subsystems must go through them in order to interface with the hardware, like you said, to avoid duplication.

rawr wrote:
(In fact, if you examine the subsystem type for these images, you'll see that they are Windows executables.)

win32k.sys (the Win32 equivalent of os2.exe and posix.exe) is also a Windows executable. The only difference is that the OS/2 and POSIX subsystem loaders contain a _WINMAIN entry point, so that they can be loaded from the shell, which is a Win32 application.

rawr wrote:
Right, but in reality, from Windows/386 2.1 (first PM Windows) through to Windows XP (first home OS based on NT architecture), it took 13 years for those APIs to mature (e.g. DirectX)

You could say the same about DirectX 10 in Vista. It is an improvement, but was DirectX 7 not mature? I think Unreal Tournament would prove otherwise. WinG (the old Windows 3.1 2D acceleration layer; could be claimed to be an early ancestor of DirectDraw) was available in 1993. Software is evolving with time - that's its nature. You can't say DirectX wasn't mature in version 2.0, because the technologies you now take for granted to be part of it (e.g. Direct3D) didn't exist in their current form back then. The same goes for everything. Games used direct hardware access because abstraction layers were too demanding back then. Saying Windows 2.x wasn't an OS because it didn't provide abstraction layers for motion graphics is like saying DOS 1.0 wasn't an OS because it didn't support hard drives.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:25 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon May 21, 2007 5:08 pm

Posts
192
It's an operating environment because you still need DOS to run it, even though a boot disk works.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:22 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon May 07, 2007 11:08 pm

Posts
399

Location
Copenhagen, Denmark

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 95 OSR 2.1 RTM
Operating environment :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:56 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2404
OE/OS for 2.1-3.11FW
2.1-3.11FW switch the processor into protected mode/
1.0-2.0 keep the processor in real mode


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS