Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Privacy, Security, Encryption A Computerworld editorial takes note of some interesting changes Dell made to the Linux page we linked to last week. They watered down some of their pro-Linux claims, but not as far as you might think.
Permalink for comment 431163
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Huhh???
by kedwards on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huhh???"
kedwards
Member since:
2009-04-25

How the heck would old "Windows Classic" (I'm assuming you mean like Windows 3, 95, and 97) not be considered an OS? As far as I know, being multi-user and network aware are not requirements for being an OS. Maybe you are talking about Windows 1 and 2, which were mostly just shells on top of DOS? (Though I would still call them OSs.)


Windows 1.X through 3.X are operating environments because they require DOS for system calls. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 can be considered either an operating system or operating enviroment(Microsoft marketed it as an operating enviroment) depending on the way you look at it. Though WFW 3.11 made its own sys calls it still needed DOS drivers for some devices like SCSI and CD-ROM.

Here are some articles that I posted in a previous thread a month ago on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x
http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/pclt/OPSYS/WFWG311.HTM
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751413.aspx

Laurence was just generalizing to the OP because of his claim that Windows wasn't an operating system.

Reply Parent Score: 1