[lug] Real Operating Systems

[Peter Hutnick]

D. Stimits said:
> John E. Koontz wrote:

>> What about the GUI shell-oid?   Does it have a name and version
>> numbers different from the putative kernel?   Has anyone managed to
>> substitute a different shell for use with the kernel?
>
> My limited understanding of this (YMMV) is that the gui is integrated
> with the kernel, they cannot be separated.

False.  Windows 3.x was sold as a DOS add on.  Win9x ran on top of DOS,
but they ran in protected mode and had direct hardware access.  The
marketing material claimed that the 9xes were operating systems per se,
but you could not boot them, only execute them on top of DOS.  Both 9xes
allowed "command prompt only" boot, AKA DOS.

The line gets pretty hazy.  Maybe DOS was reduced to simply being a
bootloader.  Has anyone tried overwriting all the memory that the DOS
kernel occupied on a running 9x system to see if it continued to function?

Here is where someone pulls Netware out of his ass.  (For the second time
today!)

-Peter