DOS and OS categories are mixed in the CPCWiki

[TFM]

In the OS category there are a lot of DOS. They belong to the DOS category.

Before I fix this problems I mention it here, because if there is need to discuss this topic, then let's do that first, before we start to improove pages in the CPC Wiki.

I suggest to clearly seperate OS and DOS in the corresponding categories. Any further suggestions here???

[Ygdrazil]

Hi TFM

Thought about i  ! But is this really needed? I mean why not simply write an explanation about the differences between OS and DOS (Maybe in the beginning of the OS/DOS category page).. Even the distinction OS/DOS is not totally clear on the great WIKIPEDIA..

Regards,
Ygdrazil

[robcfg]

I assume that a DOS is a kind of OS, so maybe we should put the first as category of the second.


That's my two cents 

[TFM]

Hi TFM

Thought about i  ! But is this really needed? I mean why not simply write an explanation about the differences between OS and DOS (Maybe in the beginning of the OS/DOS category page).. Even the distinction OS/DOS is not totally clear on the great WIKIPEDIA..

Regards,
Ygdrazil

First, please don't refer to Wikipedia. It's full of errors. Please use DIN norm, or any serious source of your choice.

Indeed it is needed to make things more clear here. You don't talk about apples and apple-trees in the same article either. I would prefer to see things correct in the Wiki actually. Think about the impression others have.

I assume that a DOS is a kind of OS, so maybe we should put the first as category of the second.


That's my two cents 

And here you are wrong. Sorry, but they are very different.

A DOS (DISC operating system) is just a piece of software that contains routines to access disc shaped mass storage. In contrast an OS (OPERATING system) is the complete sum of all routines needed to operate a complete computer system - which includes especially the management of hardware.

The German DIN norm is a quite well definition, but few here would be able to read it, so I don't post it here.

However, we see, that the abbreviations DOS and OS are mixed in the mind of users here too. This problem arises due to the fact that people use this abbreviations way to sloppy. But in binary sciences one is either a zero or a one, there's nothing between.

[robcfg]

Then again, if a DOS only has disc access routines, it would be rather a library of functions than a whole operating system, as it is not operating a full system, only disc drives...


Also, I love DIN, but I think they shouldn't have named thing with such ambiguity. It's like a house and a red house were different things besides being red or not.


Also, FutureOS is an OS or a DOS? And Windows? Linux?.... Or are all of them combination of both as they all access discs?


I feel this is like talking about the sex of angels.

[Bryce]

A DOS (DISC operating system) is just a piece of software that contains routines to access disc shaped mass storage.

But I access rectangular SD Cards with DOS?? Is there a ROS (Rectangular Operating System) I should be using?

But seriously, in older machines, the OS and DOS may have been seperate, but modern OSs have blurred the borders, so it is very difficult to say where the OS ends and the DOS starts.

Bryce.


P.s. Angels have sex??? No way, if they did there'd be a video of it on the web!

[rpalmer]

DOS was in its original form a "Disc Operating System", but now it has morphed into a "Device Operating System".

And so the OS is simply the rest of a system which gives users the ability to do things other than access devices.

And yes modern OS/DOS systems are intergrated so the border is indeed blurred.

In relation to the CPC the DOS is separate to the OS hence two different ROMs, but the AMSDOS does have a blurred boundary as the disc calls are overlayed onto the cassette I/O calls.

[Gryzor]

While I tend to agree with TFM's approach, I think that with such a narrow topic anyway it'd be something of a hairsplitting... Would there be much merit in creating more categories for a technicality?

[steve]

The concept of an Operating System is alien to 8-bit computers, in the early systems, the operating system was the person entering binary code and data into memory using switches and LEDs to read memory, if the user was rich then they could load CP/M which was a DOS.
In most 8-bit computers the "operating system" was BASIC in ROM, no DOS or disks included but an optional expensive extra, still not an OS.
In the CPC we have Firmware, BASIC and AMSDOS, which is the OS?, do we have an OS?

[MacDeath]

A DOS (DISC operating system) is just a piece of software that contains routines to access disc shaped mass storage. In contrast an OS (OPERATING system) is the complete sum of all routines needed to operate a complete computer system - which includes especially the management of hardware.

So for a MS-Dos era PC, the OS would be the sum of the Bios and the MS-Dos ?


Anyway, I d'ont think such a differenciation is that relevant on those old system were...well... such advanced OS didn't really existed.


But as you are an OS maker, i can understand your opinion on this...

futureOS and symbOS are more modern approach on the concept.


But seriously, even the Locomotive Basic could be considered an OS de facto.

[TotO]

Devices I/O (command line) = DOS
User Interface over it (txt or gfx) = OS

Atari:
GEMDOS = DOS
GEM / TOS = OS

Amiga:
AmigaDOS = DOS
Workbench = OS

Microsoft:
MS-DOS = DOS
Windows = OS

CPC:
AMSDOS = DOS
BASIC / CPM = OS

[TFM]

But seriously, in older machines, the OS and DOS may have been seperate, but modern OSs have blurred the borders, so it is very difficult to say where the OS ends and the DOS starts.

Exactly! And the CPC is Quater a Century, it doesn't run Windows, MacOS or Linux. It's a old computer and the differences are very obvious. I see no reason to discuss todays OS in the CPCWiki!

Let's stay CPC where things are easy.


@ToTo: Exactly!

[MacDeath]

I see no reason to discuss todays OS in the CPCWiki!

Ok, let's erase every FutureOS pages then...