Emulation Windows 1.04

[AMIGASYSTEM]

I had fun installing Windows 1.4 with PCX Su Amiga OS3.9 AfA-OS/060/JIT and I must say that Windows 1.4 is very fast even if it is a primitive operating system, see video.

[ Show youtube player ]

[honx]

technically windows 1.04 is no "operating system". it's just a gui, based on ms-dos operating system.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

technically windows 1.04 is no "operating system". it's just a gui, based on ms-dos operating system.

I would say no, MS-DOS can not run native Windows 1.4 applications

[honx]

it is still no operating system. an operating system is bootable, manages access to devices, memory allocation, etc. all work is done by dos.
windows 1.04 does none of this. as i said windows 1.04 is just a gui which is based on ms-dos, it requires ms-dos operating system to run.
of course windows 1.04 apps won't run native on ms dos, if they were designed for windows. this alone doesn't make an operating system.
just try to boot windows 1.04 disk. it won't boot, because it's no operating system. and there is no windows 1.4, its windows 1.04.

same with .net or java on on modern systems. .net applications require .net to be installed and java applications need java environment.
both .net and java runtime environment are no operating systems. there is no .net os or java os...

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

.
just try to boot windows 1.04 disk. it won't boot, because it's no operating system. and there is no windows 1.4, its windows 1.04.

Even Win3.x and Win95 and Win98 do not start unless MS-DOS is installed first

WinUAE A500: x86 Bridgeboard Windows 95C OSR 2 5
[ Show youtube player ]

[Toni Wilen]

Do not argue about something that has always been known. Only Windows 95 and later "take over the dos" (unless there is some 3rd party dos driver).

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

just try to boot windows 1.04 disk. it won't boot, because it's no operating system. and there is no windows 1.4, its windows 1.04.
.

I forgot, to install Windows 1.04 you do not need to install the complete MS-DOS system, just transfer the system to HD ( SYS c: ) from "Floppy Setup" MS-DOS and copy on HD the "command.com" once this is done and the system is restarted, you can install Windows 1.04 using its 7 floppies.

[honx]

but still you need the bootable part (including command.com) from ms-dos for booting.
so you boot into ms-dos (even when dos is "incomplete") and start windows from dos.
so: (ms- or pc-)dos is the operating system, windows (v1.04 up to wfw v3.11) is not.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Yes, but Win 3.x and Win95 also need MS-DOS System, otherwise you can not install them

[desiv]

Originally Posted by honx

technically windows 1.04 is no "operating system". it's just a gui, based on ms-dos operating system.

It is a bit of a gray area...
Dictionary.com: the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals.
Wikipedia: An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs.
Meriam Webster: An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs.

Based on those, a lot of what Windows 1.x does could be considered an Operating System.

It is an interesting semantic discussion and can be fun, but in the end, I don't think it really matters.

desiv

[honx]

but one really importand fact is:
an operating system is able too boot itsself without any help from an operating system like dos.
windows (v1.04 up to wfw v3.11) is started from dos, after dos already is booted and running.
technically, this makes all these early windows versions an application running on top of dos.
short: you boot dos (operating system) in order to start windows when dos is running already.

[desiv]

Originally Posted by honx

but one really importand fact is:
an operating system is able too boot itsself without any help from an operating system like dos..

Where is that definition from?


desiv

[honx]

this is what i have learned from the very first informatic lession on in school, this was back in early ninetees.
in school we had computers with dos 6.22 as operating system and windows for workgroups 3.11 on top of it.
and noone ever claimed windows being an operating system until windows 95 arrived in august 1995.

and to be exact, staying for example on this particular early version 1.04 of windows.
who does memory allocation, managing ressources, and so on? dos does all the work.
windows 1.04 is not much more than file manager with gui, built in calculator, notepad.
that good old norton commander does the same in later versions, without having a gui.
and noone ever would call norton commander some kind of "operating system"...

[desiv]

Originally Posted by honx

this is what i have learned from the very first informatic lession on in school, this was back in early ninetees.

Sure, you could say that. As I said, I don't think it matters. There is a lot of gray, especially for those of us that started when there were no GUIs.. ;-)

That said, that leaves out Win 95 as an Operating System then also.
Even Microsoft admits Win95 used DOS as a boot loader.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/old...24-00/?p=24063

I'm not familiar enough to know if that would leave Win98 out by that definition as well.

All I know is, Pluto IS a planet.. ;-)

desiv

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by desiv

I'm not familiar enough to know if that would leave Win98 out by that definition as well.

No Windows 98 theoretically does not need to pre-install MS-DOS, it is installed directly from bootable CD as is done with XP and later systems, but MS-DOS, however, is also present as a sub-system and it will still be the same for later Windows systems as well

[honx]

after 98 there was only one later windows based on dos-branch: windows me.
all other windows versions (2000, xp and so on) derive from windows nt branch.
and on that windows nt branch there never was anything like a dos sub system.
so windows nt 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, following versions really were operating systems.

[desiv]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

No Windows 98 theoretically does not need to pre-install MS-DOS, it is installed directly from bootable CD as is done with XP and later systems, but MS-DOS, however, is also present as a sub-system and it will still be the same for later Windows systems as well

I think the question more is can it boot by itself totally.
It looks like all the Windows releases that aren't NT (3.x, 4, 2000) and prior to XP actually use DOS as a boot loader.
They boot to DOS and then from there load the rest.
Now, I don't personally hold to the definition of Operating System that specifies that as a qualifier, but for those who do, that lets out 95, 98, and ME.


Again, not my definition. ;-)


desiv

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

after 98 there was only one later windows based on dos-branch: windows me.
all other windows versions (2000, xp and so on) derive from windows nt branch.
and on that windows nt branch there never was anything like a dos sub system.
so windows nt 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, following versions really were operating systems.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/star...-xp-64007.html

[honx]

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/star...-xp-64007.html

"dos mode" in windows nt up to windows xp is a virtual machine, not a standalone dos. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Partial MS-DOS compatibility was achieved via an integrated DOS Virtual Machine

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by honx

"dos mode" in windows nt up to windows xp is a virtual machine, not a standalone dos.

I do not think MS-DOS on XP it's a virtual machine, otherwise it would not be possible to install or update firmware on the hardware, install particular driver, etc.