jmfbahciv writes:
>
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv writes:
>> >=20
>> >> Bill Leary wrote:
>> >>> news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> >>>>> GreenXen>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in =
terms
> >>>>>> of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type =
as well
> >>>>>> as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of =
16-bit ISA
> >>>>>> slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It =
does not
> >>>>>> even have any EISA or SCSI.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
>> >>>>>> version of DOS fully compatible with the other =
softwares/hardwares in
> >>>>>> my vintage dream PC.
>> >>>>> [snip]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
>> >>>> Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
>> >>> For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much =
true.
> >>>
>> >>> Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
>> >> Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
>> >=20
>> > Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
>> > designate specific releases.)
>>=20
>> Monitor releases which is not the app.
>
>The monitor and the interface are the same for late versions of
>Windows. They are released together, sold together, and used together.
>=20
>> >=20
>> >>> Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or not.=
Or=20
> >>> even if it's good or not.
>> >>>
>> >> Windows is the app.
>> >=20
>> > In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
>> > the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.
>>=20
>> I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
>> lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
>> probably, The source of all its bugs.
>
>Oh, Windows has so *many* bugs, I'd hate to ascribe all of them to
>just *one* of its design flaws...
>
>> > Putting the interface in the kernel is one of its design flaws.
>>=20
>> That's because their developers didn't know how to do app code.
>> They were so used to having their way with putting app code
>> into the exec, that they thought they had to do the same with
>> VMS. that's one of the hard and fast rules that DEC didn't
>> tend to do....allow any old user mode code have direct read/write
>> access to exec code. That's why the bit gods invented UUOs and
>> CALLIs.
>
>The PC world did not learn from the mini and mainframe world very
>much. Sacrifices that were arguably necessary to make usable systems
>on affordable PCs in the late 70s-early 80s continued to be made in
>the 90s and even today, when PCs are easily powerful enough for
>separation between user code and monitor code.
>
>-- Patrick
>
>
OK you have firmly established that you weren't there.