Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Kintaro on 1 June 2010, 10:38
-
I wanted to start a thread about this highly debated question that is nearly two decades old. Most people think of Windows 3.xx as an extension and shell to DOS much like Desqview/X. The latter is worth looking up as it is an impressive X server with its own multitasking and memory manager, including a DOS TSR of its own for XMS memory. This makes it very much like Windows 3.xx which is basically window manager with a virtual machine and protected memory, and even its own drivers for sound, printing and network. Though, it does work with DOS for disk operations.
Windows 3.xx has a virtual machine (this was what came with 2.00, being able to run a zillion DOS programs in x86 VMs), 3.1 added proper virtual memory for swap, and so on. When it is ran Windows 3.11 loads these up and essentially the virtual machine doesn't let a program talk to a packet driver for a network card, it talks to Windows. Microsoft gave it its own drivers, etc, though the Windows 3.xx filesystem did just pass shit to DOS, that was the only thing. Other than that, the protected memory mode for the Virtual Machine basically made DOS pretty much inaccessible.
Windows 3.xx was very much an operating system. Just one with the ability to exit and go back to DOS. Though, usually when you do this your TSRs have been murdered and need reloading. These are what I consider to be the things that make Windows 3.1 an operating system and nothing less: virtual memory, virtual machine, protected memory, its own drivers, and shared memory.
-
Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.
-
LOL, 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.
-
LOL, 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.
Windows 9x doesn't even use DOS disk functions anymore. It's funny because back in the day old farts needlessly used MSCDEX and OEMCDROM when it didn't matter anymore. You can't really quit 9x and have anything left of the DOS instance that booted either.
Is Ubuntu an operating system? It's just a Linux kernel with a slightly modified Gnome shell.
Kind of, kind of not. It's a flavor of the GNU/Linux operating system and quite frankly the taste is far too sweet for me.
As someone quite nostalgic I find this an interesting question.
With the way "Apple System Software" left all the real work to programs (they talked directly to drivers, and my old mac classic with SS7 doesn't even multitask), and really just provided print and a GUI it was almost less of an OS than DOS. I'm not too well informed on the history of macs though.
-
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.
-
Was DOS really an OS?
Lots of programs bypassed many DOS functions anyway, although most used it for file operations.
This is pretty valid because DOS is less complex than the grub bootloader! Yeah, all DOS really is, is the most memory efficient FAT16 driver ever conceived. Though, DR-DOS has a multitasker for DOS that was quite handy when I could find use for it. Until you try getting two programs to use the packet driver, which wasn't designed for such black magic and reboots the computer in protest of the dark arts. There is even a HTTP webserver for DOS I have found out there with CGI support. I should get out a 386 from a cupboard and put it online.
dos distribution?
Who really gives a fuck. It's only a means of saying win3.x, win9x is the same old shit.
Windows 9x was about as based on DOS as Linux distributions loaded from DOS. There is a DOS program that loads the kernel, initrd, and then boots. This probably still bloody works when I think about it. There was even a driver (might still be there) in the kernel to extend FAT16 into having Unix permissions and long file names, and a whole distro called DOS4LINUX or something like that.
Windows 9x was terrible because it had no concept of user seperation. This bad habit was inherited by DOS as back then Microsoft treated its customers like retards and didn't want to change the way they think too much. This was hilarious because when I was like 8 years old the school got Windows 95 and even had a Windows 95 fileserver. All us kids had our own folder, but we could dump stuff in anyones. I drew a picture of a dong or something and put it in a grade 1s folder for her surprise.
The teacher however could identify what computer was used to put the file there, and what time it was. I know this because I denied the allegations until she shown me herself. Apparently what I did wasn't very nice, but I think this memory is grand because it is the first time I used a computer to intimidate to troll using the phallus. Yeah, I am off topic.
-
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.
-
emacs isnt an os?
-
http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs (http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs)
http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem (http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem)
-
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.
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.
The bit about MS-DOS and DR-DOS doesn't prove anything and you make an incredibly common logical fallacy, confusing association with causation.
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.
That Windows 3.11 can be launched from either means nothing because Linux as I already stated can be launched from either. It is also possible to hack the Linux kernel so after the sync before shutdown it puts DOS in the memory and throws a JMP to it. This would make MS-DOS about as useful as what you get when you "shut down to DOS" from Windows 9x. Windows 3.11 itself has to basically save the pages in memory so it can still remember anything when you "exit to DOS."
In any case, why don't you just leave your pointless comments to yourself when you know the discussion is above you. This would be like me barging in at CERN, and telling everyone what to do.
http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs (http://wordaligned.org/articles/accidental-emacs)
http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem (http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EmacsAsOperatingSystem)
LOL, 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.
-
If Windows 3.x provides low-level system management functions that MS-DOS alone cannot provide, then it is a 'real' OS, even if it can't stand alone. But even if it doesn't, I would still consider Windows+DOS to be just as 'real' as any other OS.
-
I don't think anyone's asked the important question: what is an OS?
In my view it's a piece of software required to manage the computer's hardware and make it useful for running programs. If this definition us used then Linux is not an OS, it's just a kernel and requires other components to be added before it's an OS. Windows 3.1 is not OS because it requires DOS as bootloader to run. Technically DOS is an OS but it's so archaic that it doesn't manage modern PC hardware well enough to be much use so needs something like a DOS extender to be of any real use.
-
I think it's self-evident that a kernel by itself is not an operating system. In much the same way that an engine is not a car, and a battery is not a Walkman.
MS-DOS might not be suitable for your computer, but it is most certainly an OS.
-
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.
grow up, mister 22 years old. Why the fuck do i need to convince you i'm right? your opinions are all over this board, and many of them are bullshit, if you can have your say, then i can have mine.
re: emacs, it's a text editor, not an OS. Just like ms windows was a GUI, not an OS. It was sold as a separate product ffs, and buying that product on its own would not enable you to run an OS on your computer.
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.
don't flatter yourself. Still, this has got to be one of the most ironic things i have ever read on this board. me trolling you? If that ever happened, you'd deserve it, that's for sure.
LOL, you really are a moron.
no, i'm not. However you're an offensive arsehole. This does not boot, this is calling a shell an operating system. It relies on UNIX/Linux/BSD, which is still the operating system.
do i give a fuck? this project has nothing to do with me, and i wasn't trying to use it as a reference, just an interesting related link. Are we not allowed to do that now, oh great kintaro? As an authority figure, you're pretty unconvincing. 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.
blah blah blah, but can you RUN A COMPUTER with it. no. Can you run a computer using DOS? yes. This means you can OPERATE using it, and it is a SYSTEM.
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.
no, but you're a control obsessed paranoid that thinks a discussion's only valid if yours are the only opinions aired. As i said, grow up.
-
ad hominem ad homeinem, you shouldn't open on them man its bad trolling etiquette, always FINISH on the Ad Homiem, because then its not really part of your argument and you don't end up looking like a stubborn fuck who refuses to see logic.
Windows 3.xx is more than a GUI you twit.
-
yes, but by finishing with the ad hominem, as you just did, it makes you look like you haven't a clue what you're talking about, because all you appear to be saying is that you think i am a twit, therefore your opinions must be right, and that really is stupid.
Still, i guess you know a lot more about trolling than i do.
PS - thanks for throwing in the word "should" again, love it when you do that.
-
Lol Kintaro started ad hominem and Calum foolishly reacted to it - do either of you learn anything?
Don't sart ad hominem and if someone else starts it, don't rise to it which only makes you look weaker, not stronger.
Anyway, Kintaro is right about Windows 3.x being more than a GUI but whether it's an OS or not depends the definition of an operating system.
-
Lol Kintaro started ad hominem and Calum foolishly reacted to it - do either of you learn anything?
Don't sart ad hominem and if someone else starts it, don't rise to it which only makes you look weaker, not stronger.
Anyway, Kintaro is right about Windows 3.x being more than a GUI but whether it's an OS or not depends the definition of an operating system.
They're not actually ad hominems because the character assaults were not used to effect the subject of debate. Calum didn't say "kintaro is a stupidhead and that makes 3.11 a GUI," and I all I said is that Calum's argument was a logical fallacy which means he is a baffoon - which isn't an ad hominem and calling it such is reversing casualty.
yes, but by finishing with the ad hominem, as you just did, it makes you look like you haven't a clue what you're talking about, because all you appear to be saying is that you think i am a twit, therefore your opinions must be right, and that really is stupid.
Still, i guess you know a lot more about trolling than i do.
PS - thanks for throwing in the word "should" again, love it when you do that.
You are wrong Calum, I first devised the logical flaw in your argument and then I said you don't know what you are talking about and from that I derived that you are a twit. So you have made yet ANOTHER logical fallacy, of reversing casualty to support your argument. Anyway, there is clearly no point debating you with reason so, next time you visit Australia: I challenge you to a duel. To the death.
-
Here is the source code for DOS 6.0: http://john.fawltyservers.com/MSODS60src.zip (http://john.fawltyservers.com/MSODS60src.zip)
I can't remember the original origin but I think it was Microsoft.
Pretty interesting stuff.
-
You are wrong Calum, I first devised the logical flaw in your argument and then I said you don't know what you are talking about and from that I derived that you are a twit. So you have made yet ANOTHER logical fallacy, of reversing casualty to support your argument. Anyway, there is clearly no point debating you with reason so, next time you visit Australia: I challenge you to a duel. To the death.
Can't you just grow up instead?
here's some quite simple logic. DOS is an OS, Windows is a program which runs under this OS, just like any application program extends the functions of the OS it runs under, windows does this for DOS. Any further logical statements about who is wrong or who is a twit or a stupidhead need to realise that any persons disagreeing with these facts are at least wrong about these facts. Further to this, any arguments based on one person having an encyclopaedic knowledge of programming languages, filesystem design etc etc are simply an attempt by the person claiming superiority to strawman their perceived opponent into submission, since it requires very little actual computer knowledge to grasp the concepts involved in this debate.
That should be clear enough for even you to understand. If not, i invite you to come to Scotland and have a custard pie fight to decide it once and for all.
-
Eh, you just keep repeating the same argument. It's based entirely on observation from a simple abstraction of events, you launch windows from DOS. You can launch Linux from Dos, and Windows 9x (where disk drivers are added and DOS code isn't used at all). Eh, learn moar. Hell, I am running three different OS's under VMware... Are they suddenly Applications?
-
Eh, you just keep repeating the same argument. It's based entirely on observation from a simple abstraction of events, you launch windows from DOS. You can launch Linux from Dos, and Windows 9x (where disk drivers are added and DOS code isn't used at all).
straw man again, here's why. You can launch MS Windows from DOS, and that's because it's a program that runs under DOS. You can launch Linux from DOS, i presume you mean using LINLOAD.EXE, as this tech is contemporary with MS Windows? As you know the DOS surrenders the computer to the new OS. Eh, learn moar.
and this is your standard claim to intellectual superiority, how convincing. Hell, I am running three different OS's under VMware... Are they suddenly Applications?
Nope, actually, VMWare is the application, running under whatever your real OS is (that is running on your real hardware, i mean). The OSs you're running under VMWare are still OSs, running on the virtual hardware presented by VMWare. Don't you know this? I thought you were supposed to have all this superior knowledge.
-
Sigh. DOS surrenders everything to Windows 3.1s virtual machine, which from that point handles any application code. DOS is practically dormant at that point. I won't say it again. Stop going around in circles.
-
The whole argument is bullshit anyway because no one has defined what an operating system is, for the purposes of this discussion.
This reminds e of another ridicules argument I had with someone about WINE being an emulator. Yes it is not a CPU emulator or virtual machine but if one looks up the definition of the word emulator it fits what WINE does: it allows an operating system (Linux) to emulate the functionality of anther (Windows).
-
The whole argument is bullshit anyway because no one has defined what an operating system is, for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't think that matters all that much, unless your definition of an OS is wildly different than someone else's. If Kintaro's last statement is true, then Windows is performing OS duties (again, using whatever subset of all computer actions you can name, Windows is doing them), and this argument is over without defining its parameters.
-
An operating is system is what gives the userland apps functionality, an application binary interface, some memory management.
DOS fits this quite well, so does Windows 3.xx which is highly independent of DOS. Especially 3.1x because it adds virtual memory, among others things as I keep saying. Windows 3.11 has its own APIs and application support and all that.
-
i'd like to see you install MS Windows and not DOS and get the computer working.
An OS makes your computer operate. Without DOS, 16 bit Windows does not do this.
Arguments based on OS duties, functionality etc are secondary to this inescapable fact.
PS - 32 bit windows is an OS because it does do this, whether it's based on MS DOS or not, if you get a Windows 95/98/2000 CD and install the system from it, you get a windows operating system, with DOS integrated (or emulated in some cases?) as part of it. But with 16 bit windows, the installer is a program that you run in DOS, just like every other DOS program is.
simples.
-
i'd like to see you install MS Windows and not DOS and get the computer working.
An OS makes your computer operate. Without DOS, 16 bit Windows does not do this.
Arguments based on OS duties, functionality etc are secondary to this inescapable fact.
PS - 32 bit windows is an OS because it does do this, whether it's based on MS DOS or not, if you get a Windows 95/98/2000 CD and install the system from it, you get a windows operating system, with DOS integrated (or emulated in some cases?) as part of it. But with 16 bit windows, the installer is a program that you run in DOS, just like every other DOS program is.
simples.
Nope, you won't get Windows 9x to run either without DOS. This is because in the initial stages of its operation, just like Windows 3.xx, win.com uses DOS disk functions to open up vxds (in 9x) for things like the disk driver, display driver, etc. Then it switches into protected mode, and fires up the virtual machine (that 'emulator' you talk about). Also, with Windows 3.xx the extractor that puts the installer on the disk is written in DOS, the actual installer is a windows application. As a nostalgic, I've installed this recently enough under VMware to know.
Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.
In any case this is getting a bit like debating that Linux isn't an operating system when it is running under VMware.
-
Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.
He's not saying any of that isn't true, just that his definition of an operating system is a piece of software which is required to use a computer and that Windows 3.1 doesn't meet that definition because DOS is required in order to fulfil the role of an OS.
We're going round in circles, I said this a couple of posts ago, not only is Windows 3.1 not an operating system neither is Linux which is just a kernel and requires other components (bootloader, shell etc.) before it can be considered to be an operating system.
-
Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.
He's not saying any of that isn't true, just that his definition of an operating system is a piece of software which is required to use a computer and that Windows 3.1 doesn't meet that definition because DOS is required in order to fulfil the role of an OS.
We're going round in circles, I said this a couple of posts ago, not only is Windows 3.1 not an operating system neither is Linux which is just a kernel and requires other components (bootloader, shell etc.) before it can be considered to be an operating system.
Well, you need a filesystem driver to get much use out of any operating system. Without grub and the filesystem drivers, Linux has no files and it has no way of loading any (even an initrd), to stop calling it an operating system because of this is absurd. Without DOS, Windows 3.x is broken, much like Linux is in this case. I think it just reflects back to Worker201's statement of the operating system being an object. DOS is part of the Windows 3.x operating system - but when all that is left of DOS is just an abstraction Windows 3.11 is hardly a secondary component to DOS - DOS becomes a secondary component to Windows 3.11 through its VM stack.
-
There isn't any real hard or fast definition of an OS, because the concept of an OS is just an abstraction layer. You know, there's the hardware, and the userland programs - the OS is defined as the control structure that sits between them. For example, Windows 3.1.1 sits between Word and a 386 SX. If DOS sits between Windows and the processor, then DOS is just a lower-level abstraction layer than Windows is.
One might say that Windows and DOS are the primary components of the Windows Operating System.
Just as one would be correct in saying that Gnome and the Linux kernel are components of the Fedora Linux Distribution. It's really all the same shit - but the components in the Linux distro are more transparent and hot-swappable, so it feels like they are actually userland programs. They're not.
-
PS - 32 bit windows is an OS because it does do this, whether it's based on MS DOS or not, if you get a Windows 95/98/2000 CD and install the system from it, you get a windows operating system, with DOS integrated (or emulated in some cases?) as part of it. But with 16 bit windows, the installer is a program that you run in DOS, just like every other DOS program is.
simples.
Nope, you won't get Windows 9x to run either without DOS. This is because in the initial stages of its operation, just like Windows 3.xx, win.com uses DOS disk functions to open up vxds (in 9x) for things like the disk driver, display driver, etc. Then it switches into protected mode, and fires up the virtual machine (that 'emulator' you talk about). Also, with Windows 3.xx the extractor that puts the installer on the disk is written in DOS, the actual installer is a windows application. As a nostalgic, I've installed this recently enough under VMware to know.
Anyway, none of your points change the fact that Windows 3.11 puts the processor in protected mode and runs a virtual machine that emulates all of the features of DOS. When these are disk features, that magic in MSDOS.SYS does the real work. It doesn't really run on top of dos though, it runs an independent system that then provides an abstraction of some very small DOS features.
In any case this is getting a bit like debating that Linux isn't an operating system when it is running under VMware.
ok, first, GNU/Linux (for want of a better catch all term) is still an OS wherever it is, and second, you've missed what i said again, in this case, i didn't say Windows 9x would run without DOS, what i said was that if you install Windows 9x, you get DOS as part of the system, however with Windows 3.xx, you don't install a Windows operating system, you install DOS, and then install Windows as a program under DOS.
I mean there were thousands of other DOS programs that had to do OS duties themselves due to the slim responsibilities that DOS was prepared to take on. eg DOS didn't even do any networking (and neither did MS Windows, for the most part) which is a bit extreme by today's OS standards, but would you class all those other programs as OSs as well? Is this an OS? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29)
Where's the line? Here's where i draw the line: If it makes your computer operate, it's an operating system. DOS does, Windows 9x does (whether it has a DOS chassis or not) however Windows 3.xx does not, and cannot without an actual OS powering it.
i think this dead horse has been flogged truly to pieces by now, by the way, but we can go round the circle another couple of times if you like.
One other thing, glancing over this thread is further confirmation that your accusations of my ignorance and stupidity are actually nothing more than your frustration that i don't have the same opinion as you.
-
I mean there were thousands of other DOS programs that had to do OS duties themselves due to the slim responsibilities that DOS was prepared to take on. eg DOS didn't even do any networking (and neither did MS Windows, for the most part) which is a bit extreme by today's OS standards, but would you class all those other programs as OSs as well? Is this an OS? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29)
Is a DOS extender an OS?
Some DPMI kernels only use DOS for nothing more than file IO and possibly mouse, although some of the DOS games I have use their own mouse driver and it wouldn't surprise me if DOS extenders with 32-bit disk access exist.
I've just read the Wiki for the HX-DOS Extender which seems like one hell of an OS and is even capable of running some Windows programs.
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.HX-DOS (http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.HX-DOS)
-
imho an extender isn't an OS, it's an extender.
However it can be part of an OS, just like all the apps, and even programs, in any OS distribution are part of the OS. I mean nobody would seriously claim MS Notepad was an OS, and yet it's been part of MS Windows longer than some of you have been alive, i bet.
Arguably any piece of software can be part of an OS, in fact anything that's been installed under an OS could be said to be extending that OSs functionality, if it does anything at all.