, is this really worth discussing?I admit that I probably don't know enough about this kind of thing to really say. I always thought of Windows 3.xx and even Windows 9x to be hybrid OSes both DOS and Windows. Can you run any non-NT based version of Windows without DOS? Indeed no so DOS is an essential component of Windows 3.xx/9x because it won't work without it.
Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.
Was DOS really an OS?Lots of programs bypassed many DOS functions anyway, although most used it for file operations.
dos distribution?Who really gives a fuck. It's only a means of saying win3.x, win9x is the same old shit.
DOS was the OS (hence its name) Windows was a GUI, with extensions. Try running Windows 1, 2 or 3 without DOS, you can't. Why? Because you have no OS. You can even run MS Windows on DR-DOS, as well as MS DOS, thus proving it to be purely an extension to the OS, because it can run under more than one OS, even. If MS Windows 3.xx is an OS, then emacs is an OS.
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation. Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.
http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacshttp://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem
Emacs has a virtual machine, virtual memory, a stack for multiple programs doing audio at once, and a full TCP/IP stack available? Not to mention more? Please find me a reference of this and develop a rational argument.
As usual Calum, you barge into a discussion with absolutely no technical knowledge and just the experience of "how it looked." I think you just post these things to troll me.
, you really are a moron.
This does not boot, this is calling a shell an operating system. It relies on UNIX/Linux/BSD, which is still the operating system.
As I said, Windows 3.11 is a virtual machine with protected memory which uses DOS as a disk driver. For anything else Windows 3.11 needs drivers of its own. It would be impossible to get it to work with DOS TSR packet drivers, etc, etc with multitasking anyway.
So, fuck off, learn a programming language like x86 assembler, C, or C++ and come back when you can add something that isn't a half-educated stab at logic. You are KILLING it.
Author
Topic: Windows 3.xx, OS or not? (Read 1062 times)
Share or donate
