Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 17:43 UTC
Legal We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Thread beginning with comment 533380
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Hahaha!! Yeah, except Win 95 is a very misunderstood OS. You should look in to it. If you believe that all Win 95 was was a shell on top of DOS 7.x, you're pretty far from reality. That may have been the popular misconception, but it is not reality.Here you go, I'll save you the google:



Windows 95 actually runs on top of DOS. Microsoft was lying when it said Windows 95 got rid of DOS entirely.
Or:
Windows 95 doesn't need DOS at all. You boot up right into Windows, and you only use DOS to run old DOS programs.
Both are wrong. Microsoft isn't guilty of lying; it's guilty of overhyping Windows 95 in the year before the new operating system was released. Windows doesn't run on top of DOS; it runs with the help of some old (and fully debugged) code that is essentially DOS code. Given the tradeoffs involved -- developing a reasonably stable system that could handle 16-bit Windows programs, 32-bit Windows programs and DOS programs without taking up huge amounts of memory -- Microsoft probably did the right thing by continuing to use much of the same code it employed in Windows for Workgroups (Windows 3.11). Windows 95 cannot run without that code (the so-called DOS services), and, in fact, cannot even boot up without that code. This does mean that much of the underlying code in Windows 95 is 16-bit code, and this is why Windows 95 is properly termed a 16/32-bit system and not a true 32-bit operating system.
Could Microsoft have changed most of that 16-bit code to 32-bit code? Of course. But for what purpose? Much of that code is unavoidably 16-bit in instruction length, so making each instruction 32 bits long would add 16 zero bits to one end of each piece of code. This would waste memory (and possibly even slow down some operations) without gaining anything useful. (DOS services do not need to use instructions more than 16 bits long, in other words.)
So Windows 95 needs DOS in the sense that it needs the DOS services. It doesn't need DOS itself, if you think of DOS as the command prompt.


Source: http://www.technofileonline.com/texts/bkw95myths.html

All of this sounds *exactly* like the situation your article describes. As I said, the DRDOS provided services, it wasn't doing the traditional DOS role, as you implied.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, and one of the points - mentioned by me more than once already - is how silly the usual narrative about "DOS-based" Win versions was...
(but again, also historically ironic, considering 1) how it was relatively often uttered by the users of Mac OS 2) the method of that OS7 x86)

Really, it's a high time to stop that "bitter, broken and have a bunch of straws you are desperately clutching at [...] take a break and chill [...] proving to be a very sore loser" of yours...

Reply Parent Score: 4

nutt Member since:
2011-06-22

Much of that code is unavoidably 16-bit in instruction length, so making each instruction 32 bits long would add 16 zero bits to one end of each piece of code. This would waste memory (and possibly even slow down some operations) without gaining anything useful.

LOLWUT? I think this guy has 16-bit x86 code confused with ARM Thumb or something...

Reply Parent Score: 2