What is an Operating System?

I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

All the MS OSs, and from what I've seen of Linux, are WAY BEYOND just
being an OS. For example, how much (percentage) of XP is really the
actual OS? My guess is that it would be less than one percent. XP
comes with IE, Outlook Exp, Notepad, Defrag, Character map, Dialer,
Games, Wallpapers, Wordpad, Media Player, and hundreds of other things
that are NOT needed.

Sure, we all use Notepad, and most likely Defrag, and a wallpaper, and
possibly even IE or OE. But NONE of this stuff is needed in an OS. It
seems that every version of Windows is just adding more external apps to
the same basic OS.

I'd like to see a basic OS, with nothing more. One where we can add
programs which we choose. Granted, MS does have the options during
setup (and later) to add or remove parts of their installation, such as
eliminating the games, and anyone with some computer smarts can manually
remove all the wallpapers or the notepad program and so on. But
shouldn't there be a way to install only the most barebones OS, and
othing more? Or choose each and every addition to that basic OS, such
as "Do you want Notepad, do you want Defrag, Do you want wallpaers, or a
screen saver, etc.....

Years ago, I knew a guy who what most people would call a "computer
hacker". The guy, although a little bizarre, could do damn near
anything with a computer, and at one point, he dismantled Windows 95,
and made a completely stripped down version of Win95 that would boot the
computer from one 1.44m floppy. Although it was booted, there was
nothing to really do, but it was impressive just to see win95 boot from
one floppy.

Anyhow, my point in posting this is to ask just how much is really
improved when you compare win 95 to Win8.1, regarding the actual OS and
ONLY the OS (with nothing added). Granted, some of the nerer OSs
operate parts of the hardware that the old er ones did not, for example
USB support, whereas Windows 95 and 98 did this poorly, but Win2K and up
did it well. I doubt there would be a way to boot into XP from a
floppy, but I'd also bet that the most basic booting part of XP could be
loaded in less than 5 megs, or only about 1% of the stuff on the XP
install CD is really needed, or what is the REAL OPERATING SYSTEM!

wrote:
I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

All the MS OSs, and from what I've seen of Linux, are WAY BEYOND just
being an OS. For example, how much (percentage) of XP is really the
actual OS? My guess is that it would be less than one percent. XP
comes with IE, Outlook Exp, Notepad, Defrag, Character map, Dialer,
Games, Wallpapers, Wordpad, Media Player, and hundreds of other things
that are NOT needed.

Sure, we all use Notepad, and most likely Defrag, and a wallpaper, and
possibly even IE or OE. But NONE of this stuff is needed in an OS. It
seems that every version of Windows is just adding more external apps to
the same basic OS.

I'd like to see a basic OS, with nothing more. One where we can add
programs which we choose. Granted, MS does have the options during
setup (and later) to add or remove parts of their installation, such as
eliminating the games, and anyone with some computer smarts can manually
remove all the wallpapers or the notepad program and so on. But
shouldn't there be a way to install only the most barebones OS, and
othing more? Or choose each and every addition to that basic OS, such
as "Do you want Notepad, do you want Defrag, Do you want wallpaers, or
a screen saver, etc.....

Perhaps the closest thing to this is Linux, assuming you (generic you) can
"get into" Linux. So far, I sure haven't, although it was interesting to
play around with for awhile. Ubuntu seemed to be the biggie here, but with
its new interface (called Unity), for the tablet user, thanks, but no
thanks. (I'd use Cinammon Mint if I had to pick one. But XP is much more
useable and practical for me).

Years ago, I knew a guy who what most people would call a "computer
hacker". The guy, although a little bizarre, could do damn near
anything with a computer, and at one point, he dismantled Windows 95,
and made a completely stripped down version of Win95 that would boot the
computer from one 1.44m floppy. Although it was booted, there was
nothing to really do, but it was impressive just to see win95 boot from
one floppy.

Anyhow, my point in posting this is to ask just how much is really
improved when you compare win 95 to Win8.1, regarding the actual OS and
ONLY the OS (with nothing added). Granted, some of the newer OSs
operate parts of the hardware that the old er ones did not, for example
USB support, whereas Windows 95 and 98 did this poorly, but Win2K and
up did it well. I doubt there would be a way to boot into XP from a
floppy, but I'd also bet that the most basic booting part of XP could be
loaded in less than 5 megs, or only about 1% of the stuff on the XP
install CD is really needed, or what is the REAL OPERATING SYSTEM!

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:36:44 -0500, wrote:

I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

What I would like to see in my OS is to have it built into the
motherboard. That way, I could start from scratch and not have to
reinstall it if something goes wrong.

(Updated with a flash drive)

I would like to see a functioning OS that doesn't add 100 bucks to the
price of each computer.

All the MS OSs, and from what I've seen of Linux, are WAY BEYOND just
being an OS. For example, how much (percentage) of XP is really the
actual OS? My guess is that it would be less than one percent. XP
comes with IE, Outlook Exp, Notepad, Defrag, Character map, Dialer,
Games, Wallpapers, Wordpad, Media Player, and hundreds of other things
that are NOT needed.

Sure, we all use Notepad, and most likely Defrag, and a wallpaper, and
possibly even IE or OE. But NONE of this stuff is needed in an OS. It
seems that every version of Windows is just adding more external apps to
the same basic OS.

I'd like to see a basic OS, with nothing more. One where we can add
programs which we choose. Granted, MS does have the options during
setup (and later) to add or remove parts of their installation, such as
eliminating the games, and anyone with some computer smarts can manually
remove all the wallpapers or the notepad program and so on. But
shouldn't there be a way to install only the most barebones OS, and
othing more? Or choose each and every addition to that basic OS, such
as "Do you want Notepad, do you want Defrag, Do you want wallpaers, or a
screen saver, etc.....

Years ago, I knew a guy who what most people would call a "computer
hacker". The guy, although a little bizarre, could do damn near
anything with a computer, and at one point, he dismantled Windows 95,
and made a completely stripped down version of Win95 that would boot the
computer from one 1.44m floppy. Although it was booted, there was
nothing to really do, but it was impressive just to see win95 boot from
one floppy.

Anyhow, my point in posting this is to ask just how much is really
improved when you compare win 95 to Win8.1, regarding the actual OS and
ONLY the OS (with nothing added). Granted, some of the nerer OSs
operate parts of the hardware that the old er ones did not, for example
USB support, whereas Windows 95 and 98 did this poorly, but Win2K and up
did it well. I doubt there would be a way to boot into XP from a
floppy, but I'd also bet that the most basic booting part of XP could be
loaded in less than 5 megs, or only about 1% of the stuff on the XP
install CD is really needed, or what is the REAL OPERATING SYSTEM!

On 04/02/2014 05:50 PM, JuanMotime wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:36:44 -0500, wrote:

I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

What I would like to see in my OS is to have it built into the
motherboard. That way, I could start from scratch and not have to
reinstall it if something goes wrong.

(Updated with a flash drive)



A darn good idea I've always thought.


BTW, many of the early 8088's had built-in ROM BASIC

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Perhaps the closest thing to this is Linux, assuming you (generic you) can
"get into" Linux. So far, I sure haven't, although it was interesting to
play around with for awhile. Ubuntu seemed to be the biggie here, but with
its new interface (called Unity), for the tablet user, thanks, but no
thanks. (I'd use Cinammon Mint if I had to pick one. But XP is much more
useable and practical for me).

I've played with two linux types. PUPPY and PCLINUX. Both had a ton of
programs and utilities added. From what I've seen, I'm not real fond of
linux. But Puppy can be installed right on my hard drive without
anysystem modifications, other than having a bootup selection to choose
XP or Puppy. Whereas PcLinux wanted to make partitions and so on, so I
quit using it, aside from CD booting, which is slower than ****. Anyhow,
from what you said, I dont see where Linux can be installed as JUST the
OS. However I know little about it. I'm sure some linux geek could do
it, but then some windows geek, like that guy who booted W95 from a
floppy, could extract just the OS from the XP system.

It's not that I really am trying to do it. However, there are a lot of
things that XP installs that just waste drive space. I did remove OE
and the games, neither I'll ever use. On Win98, I removed IE6, although
the core is still there and part of the OS. Considering the low cost
for hard drives these days, it's no big deal to waste a little of it on
unwanted crap that comes with Windows, but there was a time when drives
were costly and small, so I'd remove all the wallpaers and lots of other
stuff.

Yet, I would like to learn what is the absolute REQUIRED parts of XP,
and ONLY those parts, to make the computer boot up. For example, this
one computer I'm working on is lacking the video drivers, until I get to
a WIFI spot to download the large file. What puzzles me, is WHY I need
them, other than the fact that there is a yellow question mark in Device
Manager telling me I need them. I have a good clear picture on my
screen, so what is making that work, without the video drivers?

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Perhaps the closest thing to this is Linux, assuming you (generic you)
can
"get into" Linux. So far, I sure haven't, although it was interesting
to
play around with for awhile. Ubuntu seemed to be the biggie here, but
with
its new interface (called Unity), for the tablet user, thanks, but no
thanks. (I'd use Cinammon Mint if I had to pick one. But XP is much more
useable and practical for me).

I've played with two linux types. PUPPY and PCLINUX. Both had a ton
of programs and utilities added. From what I've seen, I'm not real fond
of
linux. But Puppy can be installed right on my hard drive without
anysystem modifications, other than having a bootup selection to choose
XP or Puppy. Whereas PcLinux wanted to make partitions and so on, so I
quit using it, aside from CD booting, which is slower than ****. Anyhow,
from what you said, I dont see where Linux can be installed as JUST the
OS. However I know little about it. I'm sure some linux geek could do
it, but then some windows geek, like that guy who booted W95 from a
floppy, could extract just the OS from the XP system.

I can't recall now for sure, but I think Cinammon Linux also had *some*
built in programs or utilities too, but not TOO many, and you could choose
to remove them.

It's not that I really am trying to do it. However, there are a lot of
things that XP installs that just waste drive space. I did remove OE
and the games, neither I'll ever use. On Win98, I removed IE6, although
the core is still there and part of the OS. Considering the low cost
for hard drives these days, it's no big deal to waste a little of it on
unwanted crap that comes with Windows, but there was a time when drives
were costly and small, so I'd remove all the wallpapers and lots of other
stuff.

But the stuff you've removed doesn't really use all that much disk space.
Things that do .. would be stuff like Adobe Photoshop, or some good Video
Editors - or some large games - the heavyweights. Utilities and wallpapers,
and the simple games that came with windows, along with windows Paint,
Wordpad, and Notepad, use very little disk space, and doesn't account for
most of the bloat for XP as compared to W98. It's actually just more OS
enhancements, such as greatly increased USB support, better multiuser and
networking support, more built in protection or robustness against aberrant
program running astray, etc.

But it's true a single user may not need some of this stuff, however, and
that's (in part) why Win98SE was a lot trimmer.

I can't recall now, but if I were to hazard a guess, a minimum W98SE system
might use (say) 200 MB for the OS, and WinXP (say) 2 GB or so for the OS.
I think those numbers are in the ballpark and show a 10:1 ratio, which is
easy for me to remember. :-) And I imagine Vista is over 10 GB for the
OS.

Oh, and don't forget XP also added System Restore, which can occasionally
come in handy in pinch. But the best backup is a clone or image backup.
And again, ERUNT comes in handy on occasion too (for a quickie registry
restore).

Yet, I would like to learn what is the absolute REQUIRED parts of XP,
and ONLY those parts, to make the computer boot up. For example, this
one computer I'm working on is lacking the video drivers, until I get to
a WIFI spot to download the large file. What puzzles me, is WHY I need
them, other than the fact that there is a yellow question mark in Device
Manager telling me I need them. I have a good clear picture on my
screen, so what is making that work, without the video drivers?

I'm assuming that means windows used whatever it found to be the closest
generic match in its own built-in driver libraries.

On 4/2/14 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Perhaps the closest thing to this is Linux, assuming you (generic you) can
"get into" Linux. So far, I sure haven't, although it was interesting to
play around with for awhile. Ubuntu seemed to be the biggie here, but with
its new interface (called Unity), for the tablet user, thanks, but no
thanks. (I'd use Cinammon Mint if I had to pick one. But XP is much more
useable and practical for me).

I've played with two linux types. PUPPY and PCLINUX. Both had a ton of
programs and utilities added. From what I've seen, I'm not real fond of
linux. But Puppy can be installed right on my hard drive without
anysystem modifications, other than having a bootup selection to choose
XP or Puppy. Whereas PcLinux wanted to make partitions and so on, so I
quit using it, aside from CD booting, which is slower than ****. Anyhow,
from what you said, I dont see where Linux can be installed as JUST the
OS. However I know little about it. I'm sure some linux geek could do
it, but then some windows geek, like that guy who booted W95 from a
floppy, could extract just the OS from the XP system.

It's not that I really am trying to do it. However, there are a lot of
things that XP installs that just waste drive space. I did remove OE
and the games, neither I'll ever use. On Win98, I removed IE6, although
the core is still there and part of the OS. Considering the low cost
for hard drives these days, it's no big deal to waste a little of it on
unwanted crap that comes with Windows, but there was a time when drives
were costly and small, so I'd remove all the wallpaers and lots of other
stuff.

Yet, I would like to learn what is the absolute REQUIRED parts of XP,
and ONLY those parts, to make the computer boot up. For example, this
one computer I'm working on is lacking the video drivers, until I get to
a WIFI spot to download the large file. What puzzles me, is WHY I need
them, other than the fact that there is a yellow question mark in Device
Manager telling me I need them. I have a good clear picture on my
screen, so what is making that work, without the video drivers?

Video drivers...

Let's say your monitor/video card is capable of producing a resolution
of 1280 X 960. AFAIK, XP's maximum native resolution may be 1024 X 768.
I think I've had an XP install give me that a couple of times, but
usually 800 X 600 is what I had when done installing.

If you don't install the correct driver for your video card, you can't
access the higher resolutions. And I don't think there's a single
resolution in XP for widescreen monitors.

I have an HP 9500, 19" CRT monitor on my XP/Vista computer. And I run
1280 X 960. I've changed the size of the desktop icons and text, and
set the spacing to my liking. And I have a clear picture.

Where the high resolution comes into play for me is I get more
"information" displayed. Photos are far better appearing, and you see
more of it. In a word processor, if your zoom is set to actual size, I
see an entire letter sized page, not just part of it.

Can't help but think that what you do with Paint Shop Pro wouldn't be a
lot easier to do with more "screen real estate". :-)


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:59:42 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 4/2/14 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:


Video drivers...

Let's say your monitor/video card is capable of producing a resolution
of 1280 X 960. AFAIK, XP's maximum native resolution may be 1024 X 768.
I think I've had an XP install give me that a couple of times, but
usually 800 X 600 is what I had when done installing.

If you don't install the correct driver for your video card, you can't
access the higher resolutions. And I don't think there's a single
resolution in XP for widescreen monitors.

I have an HP 9500, 19" CRT monitor on my XP/Vista computer. And I run
1280 X 960. I've changed the size of the desktop icons and text, and
set the spacing to my liking. And I have a clear picture.

Where the high resolution comes into play for me is I get more
"information" displayed. Photos are far better appearing, and you see
more of it. In a word processor, if your zoom is set to actual size, I
see an entire letter sized page, not just part of it.

Can't help but think that what you do with Paint Shop Pro wouldn't be a
lot easier to do with more "screen real estate". :-)

What I do in PSP is all on my Win98 machine. However, I never go over
1024 x 768, because I cant see it. My vision is not all that good
anymore. Part of getting old. But I just tried on that XP machine, and
1024 x 768 IS the highest it goes. So I guess you made your point.
Eventually I do want to get a bigger screen. Actually I hear some HDTV
sets can be used as monitors now. That is probably the way to go,
because it can also be used as a TV.

On 4/2/14 5:24 PM, philo wrote:
On 04/02/2014 05:50 PM, JuanMotime wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:36:44 -0500, wrote:

I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

What I would like to see in my OS is to have it built into the
motherboard. That way, I could start from scratch and not have to
reinstall it if something goes wrong.

(Updated with a flash drive)



A darn good idea I've always thought.


BTW, many of the early 8088's had built-in ROM BASIC

Where have you guys been? Atari did that 20 odd years ago with their
ST/TT/Falcon line of computers.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:46:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


BTW, many of the early 8088's had built-in ROM BASIC


I had an 8088 as my first computer, and I recall getting into Rom-Basic
a few times by accident. I did nto know what to do except reboot to get
out of it.

On 4/2/14 8:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:59:42 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 4/2/14 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:


Video drivers...

Let's say your monitor/video card is capable of producing a resolution
of 1280 X 960. AFAIK, XP's maximum native resolution may be 1024 X 768.
I think I've had an XP install give me that a couple of times, but
usually 800 X 600 is what I had when done installing.

If you don't install the correct driver for your video card, you can't
access the higher resolutions. And I don't think there's a single
resolution in XP for widescreen monitors.

I have an HP 9500, 19" CRT monitor on my XP/Vista computer. And I run
1280 X 960. I've changed the size of the desktop icons and text, and
set the spacing to my liking. And I have a clear picture.

Where the high resolution comes into play for me is I get more
"information" displayed. Photos are far better appearing, and you see
more of it. In a word processor, if your zoom is set to actual size, I
see an entire letter sized page, not just part of it.

Can't help but think that what you do with Paint Shop Pro wouldn't be a
lot easier to do with more "screen real estate". :-)

What I do in PSP is all on my Win98 machine. However, I never go over
1024 x 768, because I cant see it. My vision is not all that good
anymore. Part of getting old. But I just tried on that XP machine, and
1024 x 768 IS the highest it goes. So I guess you made your point.
Eventually I do want to get a bigger screen. Actually I hear some HDTV
sets can be used as monitors now. That is probably the way to go,
because it can also be used as a TV.

Check out your monitor's specs. Since it sounds like you "roll your
own" for computers, your monitor may do higher resolutions than your
video card can do. The reverse is also true, the video card may be able
to do higher resolutions than the monitor.

One problem with never getting newer versions of software, or maybe
different software, is the old version doesn't know how to deal with and
adjust to higher resolutions. I can only guess here, but you should be
able to configure XP, or anything newer, and later versions of software,
to compensate for your vision problems. Some of those abilities are now
part of the operating system, although it probably doesn't fit your
definition and desire for a minimal OS install. Minimal OS = minimal
capabilities. Translated... Do you want to see it or not?

As for eyesight, I just got finished with a 3rd treatment for macular
degeneration.

It just occurred to me, if you applied you desire for the minimum OS and
no "extras" to your car, you'd have no radio, power steering, power
brakes, auto transmission, etc. G

The do make combo TV/monitors, have for some time. But I doubt anything
you've built would work with those units. And to be honest, they aren't
something that interests me. This Mac, and a WIn7/Win8 computer I
built, have 24" widescreen monitors, running 1920 X 1200 resolution.
These days, it's hard to find monitors capable of that resolution as the
aspect ration is 16:10, not the 16:9 that is ubiquitous.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 4/2/14 2:36 PM, wrote:
I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

To those that don't know anything about the "innards" of a computer, I
just tell them it's the program that tells the hardware it's a computer
and not a doorstop. LOL

The OS talks only in 1's and 0's, not in any verbal language we
understand. Programs have been written that translate the 1's and 0's
into something humans can understand.

All the MS OSs, and from what I've seen of Linux, are WAY BEYOND just
being an OS. For example, how much (percentage) of XP is really the
actual OS? My guess is that it would be less than one percent. XP
comes with IE, Outlook Exp, Notepad, Defrag, Character map, Dialer,
Games, Wallpapers, Wordpad, Media Player, and hundreds of other things
that are NOT needed.

Sure, we all use Notepad, and most likely Defrag, and a wallpaper, and
possibly even IE or OE. But NONE of this stuff is needed in an OS. It
seems that every version of Windows is just adding more external apps to
the same basic OS.

I'd like to see a basic OS, with nothing more. One where we can add
programs which we choose. Granted, MS does have the options during
setup (and later) to add or remove parts of their installation, such as
eliminating the games, and anyone with some computer smarts can manually
remove all the wallpapers or the notepad program and so on. But
shouldn't there be a way to install only the most barebones OS, and
othing more? Or choose each and every addition to that basic OS, such
as "Do you want Notepad, do you want Defrag, Do you want wallpaers, or a
screen saver, etc.....

Years ago, I knew a guy who what most people would call a "computer
hacker". The guy, although a little bizarre, could do damn near
anything with a computer, and at one point, he dismantled Windows 95,
and made a completely stripped down version of Win95 that would boot the
computer from one 1.44m floppy. Although it was booted, there was
nothing to really do, but it was impressive just to see win95 boot from
one floppy.

You're "computer hacker" might be very unhappy these days. For him to
do those kinds of things, the ability to manipulate things, has to be
built into the OS. I used know a similar type of person who complained
that with each new version of Windows, MS removed those parts of the OS
that allowed him to do that type of thing.

Anyhow, my point in posting this is to ask just how much is really
improved when you compare win 95 to Win8.1, regarding the actual OS and
ONLY the OS (with nothing added). Granted, some of the nerer OSs
operate parts of the hardware that the old er ones did not, for example
USB support, whereas Windows 95 and 98 did this poorly, but Win2K and up
did it well. I doubt there would be a way to boot into XP from a
floppy, but I'd also bet that the most basic booting part of XP could be
loaded in less than 5 megs, or only about 1% of the stuff on the XP
install CD is really needed, or what is the REAL OPERATING SYSTEM!

You have to consider the marketplace, and the need for MS or any other
company to actually sell the computer. The vast majority of purchasers
want the computer to do something right out of the box. So the makers
supply programs that aren't technically part of the OS, but gives the
purchaser the ability to use the computer out of the box.

So, you'll never see what you want. If it were me, and I wanted the
bare bones and yet still have something that boots up, I would just
delete (uncheck) all the possible parts of the Windows install you can.
I don't do much in the way of things like that, just in case MS puts
out a patch/repair for the OS that expects one or more of those
components to be installed. And over the years, I see users post about
problems with this update and that. But they decide they don't want
this, that, or something else on their computer. Netframework comes to
mind. I've just let the updates do what they want, leave things alone,
and I've never had any problems with my equipment.

Only once that I remember did I have an issue with an update. There was
some kind of hardware issue, and when I changed the network card, all
was well.




--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:59:42 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 4/2/14 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:17:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:


Video drivers...

Let's say your monitor/video card is capable of producing a resolution
of 1280 X 960. AFAIK, XP's maximum native resolution may be 1024 X 768.
I think I've had an XP install give me that a couple of times, but
usually 800 X 600 is what I had when done installing.

If you don't install the correct driver for your video card, you can't
access the higher resolutions. And I don't think there's a single
resolution in XP for widescreen monitors.

I have an HP 9500, 19" CRT monitor on my XP/Vista computer. And I run
1280 X 960. I've changed the size of the desktop icons and text, and
set the spacing to my liking. And I have a clear picture.

Where the high resolution comes into play for me is I get more
"information" displayed. Photos are far better appearing, and you see
more of it. In a word processor, if your zoom is set to actual size, I
see an entire letter sized page, not just part of it.

Can't help but think that what you do with Paint Shop Pro wouldn't be a
lot easier to do with more "screen real estate". :-)

What I do in PSP is all on my Win98 machine. However, I never go over
1024 x 768, because I cant see it. My vision is not all that good
anymore. Part of getting old. But I just tried on that XP machine, and
1024 x 768 IS the highest it goes. So I guess you made your point.
Eventually I do want to get a bigger screen. Actually I hear some HDTV
sets can be used as monitors now. That is probably the way to go,
because it can also be used as a TV.

I'm still using 800 X 600, and even prefer it over 1024 X 768. I can't get
or see "as much stuff" on the desktop that way, but so what?? What I do
see, I see clearly, and at a nice comfortable size on my 19" monitor. Then
again, I'm not running multiple apps in multiple windows, either. When I
see other people's computers, they invariably have and use a higher
resolution desktop, with smaller print, but I just don't care for it.

On 04/02/2014 09:48 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:46:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


BTW, many of the early 8088's had built-in ROM BASIC


I had an 8088 as my first computer, and I recall getting into Rom-Basic
a few times by accident. I did nto know what to do except reboot to get
out of it.





Yep, that will come up if the hard drive is not detected

On 4/2/2014 4:36 PM, wrote:
I used to think an Operating System, was the software that made the
hardware inside a computer operate in a language that we understand (in
other words, in English, or any other language). Or to put it another
way, it makes the hardware in the computer put an understandable image
on our monitor screen.

That is certainly not my definition of an OS. An OS is the collection
of software between Apps and the hardware; it is those Apps that put
stuff on the tube. IMHO, every reasonable OS does error handling
for hardware, and every OS that supports concurrency (including
multi-tasking and multi-threading) must do resource allocation and
some degree of control over Apps.

There are *lots* of other functions that real OS's perform. If I left
one of your favorites off of my brief list, feel free to yell -- if it
will make you feel better.

My model of a computer is an onion: the hardware is the core, the OS
is the next layer, and Apps live in the outer layer. In finer grain,
the OS may have multiple layers of its own: a kernel surrounding
the hardware, and segments of outermore layers that support optional
hardware and features and, sometimes, alternative software stacks
(e.g., networking).
--
Cheers, Bob