Read a book, not a magazine. A “shell” is what I described, the “outer layer” of an operating system that provides the user interface that a human interacts with when not running another specific application.
OK, I can accept that definition - So the shell is *not* the operating system, but is only a part of the operating system. It's the outer layer that exists beyond the key functionality of the hardware abstraction and the BIOS layers. I think your definition is close enough to anything that would have reasonably been linked to.
(IE, it’s basically the “default” application, and is generally written as if it *were* an application, using the OSes’ normal APIs.) The problem with just calling Windows a “shell” is that the component that fits that definition of the “shell”, IE, the Program Manager, *is not a DOS program*.
You've made a really interesting point there.
If a new system creates the entire function of the OS it replaces, as per the Linux example you provided in the subsequent post, then yes, I would agree it's a different OS. If all that remains is the BIOS, or the other elements of the OS are avoided entirely, then it's a new OS.
Under Windows 3.11. You want to install a new drive, but it's not compatible with the BIOS, so you load drivers. You include the driver.sys file on config.sys, and maybe some other parts in autoexec.bat. These shim themselves into the OS - Does Windows recognize these drivers? These DOS drivers? If so, then the shell is just a shell, not matter how advanced is it not? If it replaces everything.
I think this is a pretty good differentiator between a replacement OS and a new Shell to add additional functionality, but still respect the existing elements of the current OS - eg, Disk structure, Device access, etc.
Where do you place Windows? They replaced a lot in 386 Windows, but on the 286, it still worked with the OS in place IIRC.... so in my opinion, it's just a shell replacement. A very advanced shell replacement.
So based on that, I would say that Windows 3.1 is a shell, not an OS.
As noted, I'm surprised that's such a controversial opinion. I know Wikipedia isn't considered a major source of information however;
Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1
"Like its predecessors, the Windows 3.1 series ran as a
shell on top of
MS-DOS."
So it's clearly far more than just myself who has this opinion. As with most opinions, it's open to change.
Windows is a *huge* pile of APIs, far more than DOS has built into it, that define an entirely different programming environment, and its shell runs on top of *that*. All DOS meaningfully supplies to Windows is file system access, and the main reason Microsoft used those services in the consumer versions of Windows prior to 9x (with the aforementioned exception of 32 bit disk access in Windows 3.1) is it helped with compatibility issues. (Disk hardware was about the most diverse aspect of PC hardware in the 80’s and early 90’s, because the use of INT13 DOS/BIOS calls allowed for a fair amount of hardware abstraction.)
Agreed. DOS programs also run in Windows 3.1 too.
Though I question whether the functionality inherent to Windows is required to abstract elements of the hardware that cannot be accessed through DOS to begin with, or whether the new functionality under the API simply extends on what the DOS offers, with much of it inherent to the shell itself.
If you really want to be pigheaded and insist that Windows is “just a shell” because it launches from a DOS prompt instead of bootstrapping directly that’s your right,
There's no need to call names and infer I'm something derogatory if I don't immediately accept an alternative opinion expressed by another person. I already mentioned I'm quite open. I'm asking reasonable questions. By all means change my mind - I'm genuinely considering your opinion, but I'd really like to understand what's behind your opinion before adopting it.
but from a computer science standpoint it’s a ridiculous hair to split. This really gets absurd when you consider Windows 3.x running in Standard and 386 Enhanced mode, because those versions construct a hugely elaborate cage around DOS and basically swallow it after they’re launched. DOS has *zero* Protected Mode support and has *no idea* what’s going on in these situations, so it’s clearly *not* the “Operating System” in charge once Windows is up and running.
Then from a computer science standpoint, where
do you split that hair? Can you propose a better point at which to cut it?
Program Manager, the “shell” of Windows 3.x, is a *Windows* application. You can copy it off a Win3 installation and run it on any version of 9x or NT that has 16 bit API support. You *cannot* run it on DOS without Windows. Nor can you run any other Windows program on DOS without Windows installed. Comparing Windows to Norton Commander as if they were the same thing is beyond stupid.
Any program can be created that doesn't run without an additional supporting program. You can run DOS programs on Windows. Do they interface to any function loaded from the underlying DOS substructure in memory or are all of the functions replaced? That only windows can run windows programs is like arguing MSBASIC is an operating system, because you *cannot* run BASIC programs on DOS without BASIC first being loaded. Especially so since it's usually an interpreted language.
… anyway, whether you want to *call* Windows 3.x an “operating system” or not is besides the point for this conversation. By 1995 it was installed on the vast majority of new PCs out of the box (and had been retrofitted to millions of older PCs), and your average PC user had at least some exposure to running Windows applications. (Microsoft Office as a unified product had been on the market for five years now, and was already by far the most popular GUI office suite in the world.)
This just isn't true. Not by any measure. It didn't launch until late AUGUST 1995 ! By 1995 has a clear and unambiguous meaning. It means 1 Jan 1995. I don't know how many PCs released with Windows 95 by 1st Jan 1996, but I would have no reason to believe that isn't true if you want to change the year you've claimed.
I don’t even understand where you’re trying to go dragging DRI into this. Sure, Windows 3.x can run on top of DR-DOS, but it gets *zero* benefit out of doing so. Also… you are aware of the fact that DRI was technically defunct as of 1991, right? (It had been sold to Novell.) They had absolutely nothing in their pipeline to offer as an alternative to Windows 95; they had developed some “interesting” tech along similar lines to Windows 386 Extended Mode as part of the abortive “Star Trek” collaboration with Apple:
Why am I dragging DRI into the conversation?
Because that's the thread topic... The thread is literally talking about the CP/M "hold" over OS choice - and so pointing out that DRI operating sysetms, and DOS related technologies they made were still entirely relevant until 1995. By which time, Gary Kildall was *very* wealthy. Which, if you go back to what I posted that sparked this controversy, is what I said!
LoL! That's funny. Why am I mentioning DRI in a thread about DRI and about CP/M and MS-DOS ! Because it's on-topic. Hence why when mentioning the death of Gary Kildall, I specifically spoke of the era in the context of events that occured before that date. Not after it. Though it was owned by Novell by then, I'm guessing he still viewed it as his legacy.
en.wikipedia.org
But it never went anywhere. Bits of it, along with a few chunks of GEM, ended up in DR-DOS as parts of the multitasking DOS shell, but this was a purely niche DOS power user product that didn’t do much but eat what was left of DesqView’s lunch. None of this would have been attractive to anyone who’d already gotten hooked on Microsoft Windows apps, so… yeah, not sure what’s trying to be sold here.
I wasn't familiar with this project. It's interesting to read about it and I think it's pretty cool - Might have been OS-X more than a decade before? - Maybe it went nowhere, but it also might have gone somewhere. I think until Windows95, anything could have happened. MacOS was the only underdog that challenged microsoft from 1982 to today. Clearly it had potential at the time, because they tried it. Or are you arguing everyone knew it was a mistake before they did it and they did it anyway?
