Originally Posted by cavallino
You have a point there so I should say DOS, it would be not different then calling X or KDE and OS for Linux.
I think because Windows is now and OS it makes it easy to make the mistake.
It's just that because of this big confusion (lots of people on this thread calling Windows 3.1 an OS, not just you), people end up not giving importance to DOS, and what version people used. And there were many interesting DOS versions. The latest ones for example came with an Anti-virus (ha, you thought Security Essentials was the first time Microsoft thought of this ?), disk defragmenter, disk scanning, disk compression tool, memory optimizer, extensive help (with built-in help insisde each command also), a Dos Shell, etc.
As to calling X or KDE an OS for Linux, it's not quite the same.
The main distinction here is that Windows 3.1 was a separate product, sold seperately, and DOS would run perfectly without it. The main confusion is probably due to the fact that in the later years, just before Windows 95, computer makers started bundling PC's with both DOS and Windows, sometimes even putting the windows executable at the end of the autoexec.bat file so it would start automatically after the boot process was finished.
Now, you have Windows 95 and 98 and ME, which are hybrid OS'es, they are still using DOS underneath to boot, but the focus has shifted to the GUI, you can now start doing everything from there, and applications for DOS are being phased out. And most importantly, it's a single product, with a much tighter integration.
The same thing happens with Linux distributions that use X or KDE. They are designed as a single product and should be regarded as an OS. Of course you can still get yourself a command line only Linux distribution, and that is to be regarded as an OS also.Edited by tpi2007 - 7/21/11 at 10:01am