2 Aug
2004
2 Aug
'04
1:29 p.m.
From: "Cameron Kaiser"
<spectre(a)floodgap.com>
Windows is not. It is an application interface.
Dwight
> He got red in the face when I asked him how
he's teaching kids any
> base OS principles such as state-saving and interrupting. Meaning,
> kids don't go there, pretty much. The next major version of a
> known OS will probably be without interrupts, as none of the
> programmers will have any knowledge about them anymore ;-)
OH, like DOS again!
DOS is an operating system? ;)
2 Aug
2 Aug
2:33 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
>> >> OH, like DOS again!
>> >
>> >DOS is an operating system? ;)
>> >
>>
>> Windows is not. It is an application interface.
>> Dwight
>>
>>
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
5:57 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
Um, XP is based on 2000. It's the only really "stable" (I put that in
quotes because my system has been teetering on the brink of oblivion for
the past week...I just have too many open windows going to conveniently
reboot) release of Windows so far.
ME is definitely a pile of shit.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
>>
>> OH, like DOS again!
>> >
>> >DOS is an operating system? ;)
>> >
>>
>> Windows is not. It is an application interface.
>> Dwight
>>
>>
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME 
6:09 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
Um, XP is based on 2000.
Yes.
It's the only really "stable" (I put
that
in quotes because my system has been teetering on the brink of
oblivion for the past week...I just have too many open windows going
to conveniently reboot) release of Windows so far.
Only stable *consumer* version of Windows.
Windows NT, 2000, 2003 are all nicely stable.
I recommend 2000 as the best w/o activation issues.
ME is definitely a pile of shit.
That seems to be the consensus.
- Joe
(former Microsoft employee, in the OS research group :-)
6:22 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Oops me bad on XP....
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Vintage
>> Computer Festival
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:57 AM
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Subject: RE: What is an Operating System (was Electronics
>> Barn closing)
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
>>
>> > >>> >> OH, like DOS again!
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >DOS is an operating system? ;)
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Windows is not. It is an application interface.
>> > >>> Dwight
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
>> Not true
>> > NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
>> Debatable for
>> > XP, ME
>>
>> Um, XP is based on 2000. It's the only really "stable" (I
>> put that in quotes because my system has been teetering on
>> the brink of oblivion for the past week...I just have too
>> many open windows going to conveniently
>> reboot) release of Windows so far.
>>
>> ME is definitely a pile of shit.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sellam Ismail
>> Vintage Computer Festival
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> International Man of Intrigue and Danger
>> http://www.vintage.org
>>
>> [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade
>> Vintage Computers ]
>> [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
>> http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
>>
6:30 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
Um, XP is based on 2000. It's the only really "stable" (I put that in
quotes because my system has been teetering on the brink of oblivion for
the past week...I just have too many open windows going to conveniently
reboot) release of Windows so far.
ME is definitely a pile of shit.
W2K is your best bet for a semi stable gates sourced O/S. If you want to
play games,
It's your only option for now ;-)
Jim Davis.
For Now.....
>>>>OH, like DOS again!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>DOS is an operating system? ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Windows is not. It is an application interface.
>>Dwight
>>
>>
>>
>>
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
11:35 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as well, aren't they?
11:28 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Quite true for
Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as well, aren't they? 
11:37 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
In message <410F7874.E2F25E18(a)brothom.nl>
Bert Thomas <bert(a)brothom.nl> wrote:
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
XP = Windows 2000 with the "Teletubbies"-esque user interface
ME = Windows 98, but about 1000x less stable and with more annoying features.
If I had to use Windows, then on sub-500MHz machines, I'd use 98. On 500MHz
(or faster) machines, I'd use 2k. Personally, I prefer Linux though.
Especially when WINE behaves itself and runs my CAD software properly.
Later.
--
Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/ | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... Error 216: Tagline out of paper
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as well, aren't they? 
11:53 p.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Pemberton" <philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
In message <410F7874.E2F25E18(a)brothom.nl>
Bert Thomas <bert(a)brothom.nl> wrote:
features.
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
XP = Windows 2000 with the "Teletubbies"-esque user interface
ME = Windows 98, but about 1000x less stable and with more annoying
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e. NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as well, aren't they? If I had to use Windows, then on sub-500MHz machines,
I'd use 98. On
500MHz
(or faster) machines, I'd use 2k. Personally, I
prefer Linux though.
Especially when WINE behaves itself and runs my CAD software properly.
Later.
--
Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB,
6GB,
I found ME to either run stable or very unstable, its was very machine
specific. ME and 9x also had major problems if you loaded them up with 768mb
of ram or more.
Win2k runs fine on slower equipment if it has allot of memory and more then
one processor (My home built pr440fx motherboard with dual PPro 333 upgrades
and 3 x 128MB EDO/ECC ram comes to mind).
If your going to use Windows 9x, 98SE would be the optimal edition.
3 Aug
3 Aug
6:09 a.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bert Thomas wrote:
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e.
NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as
well, aren't they?
XP IS a version of NT, not just "based on it" (2000 IS NT5, XP would have
been NT6)
NT ("New Technology", or "Not Today") was a mix of OS/2 code (written
at
M-word by Gordon Letwin), and code that Cutler brought with him from DEC.
ME ("Millenium Edition") is the next (and LAST) version of
W-word 9x (95,98,ME)
95 was DOS 7.00 bundled (integrated) with W-word 4.00
M-word tried to switch their customers over to NT, with [false]
statements that Win2K was "the best of 9x AND NT" - it wasn't,
it was JUST NT. That didn't work, and they relented and brought
out one more version of 9x ("ME"). Then they tried again, and
forced their customers to switch to NT in the form of XP.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
7:03 a.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Rumor has it that Fred Cisin may have mentioned these words:
XP IS a version of NT, not just "based on it"
(2000 IS NT5, XP would have
been NT6)
Erm... not quite. 2K is NT5, XP *is* NT5.1, so the "evolution" of XP from
2K is very slight - mainly in more security holes, tighter yet integration
of IE, the candy-coated GUI (which you can revert to 2K-like, tho it ain't
easy to find all the different animation settings without TweakUI) and the
ability to play a lot more games (mostly in the 3D realm).
... Oh, and in more memory usage. I can trim most unnecessary services (for
me) in Win2K so about 58-60Meg is used on boot - IIRC, the best I ever got
XP down to is around 90-95Meg, with comparable services running.
[[ Contrast that with my LinuxFromScratch 4.0 install on my laptop - with
comparable services (DHCP enabled, etc.) running, X running, animated
background (xfishtank) and 1 terminal window open (on boot, so I didn't
fiddle with it) -> 23Meg used. This includes apache, PostgreSQL &
ColdFusion 4.5. On boot with no GUI (but all services) -> 15 Meg. My
freshly compiled LFS 5.1.1 with no services running: 9.2 Meg. My wife's
Shuttle running standard RedHat 9 & Nautilus for the GUI - a touch over
100Meg. It goes to show that enduser linux is sometimes no better now than
enduser Winders.]]
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch(a)30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
9:52 a.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
freshly compiled LFS 5.1.1 with no services running:
9.2 Meg. My wife's
Shuttle running standard RedHat 9 & Nautilus for the GUI - a touch over
100Meg. It goes to show that enduser linux is sometimes no better now than
enduser Winders.]]
That may well be the influence of all the 20-something aged programmers
who never had to squeeze a program into 4K of memory (or less).
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7:34 a.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
Fred Cisin wrote:
Thanks all, but nobody explained why it is debatable...
Based on all you people are saying I'd say ME is _not_, XP _is_.
Bert
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bert Thomas wrote:
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e.
NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as
well, aren't they?
XP IS a version of NT, not just "based on it" (2000 IS NT5, XP would have
been NT6)
NT ("New Technology", or "Not Today") was a mix of OS/2 code (written
at
M-word by Gordon Letwin), and code that Cutler brought with him from DEC.
ME ("Millenium Edition") is the next (and LAST) version of
W-word 9x (95,98,ME)
95 was DOS 7.00 bundled (integrated) with W-word 4.00
M-word tried to switch their customers over to NT, with [false]
statements that Win2K was "the best of 9x AND NT" - it wasn't,
it was JUST NT. That didn't work, and they relented and brought
out one more version of 9x ("ME"). Then they tried again, and
forced their customers to switch to NT in the form of XP.
7:07 a.m.
New subject: What is an Operating System (was Electronics Barn closing)
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bert Thomas wrote:
Thanks all, but nobody explained why it is
debatable...
Based on all you people are saying I'd say ME is _not_, XP _is_.
I'm not sure what semantics people are bringing into this equation, but ME
is simply a crappy "upgrade" of the 9x line, and XP is NT/2000 based.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7449
days inactive
7450
days old
14 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
bert＠brothom.nl -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
jimmydevice＠verizon.net -
joe＠barrera.org -
philpem＠dsl.pipex.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
zmerch＠30below.com