🚀 go-pugleaf

_

	I have seen an awful lot of argument on here (somewhat more on the
windows newsgroup) about whether or not Windows is an operating system, but
both seem to have gotten nowhere.  Well, folks, I think it is going to take
someone outside your experiential domains to resolve this issue, so I as a
Macintosh user hereby nominate myself to the task.

	In order to resolve whether or not Windows is an operating system, we
are going to have to look at some other things whose extent of being operating
systems can be determined by non-subjective methods.  Logically, one would
pick the other things such that they will have some relation to Windows, in
order to make the comparisons more meaningful.  Therefore, I will pick DOS and
OS/2.

	First, let us start out with OS/2.  I think that we can all agree
that, as implied by the name, OS/2 1.0 was a half-act operating system.  With
succeeding versions, IBM multiplied the functionality by 1.1, 1.09090909091,
1.0833333333333, and now most recently by 1.5384615384615, thus giving rise to
OS/2 1.1, OS/2 1.2, OS/2 1.3, and OS/2 2.0 respectively.  OS/2 2.0, finally,
is one whole operating system, as has been confirmed by experimental
observation.

	The case of DOS is slightly less obvious, but careful application of
numerological regressive analysis indicates that, as (again) the name implies,
it is a deci-operating system -- that is to say, 0.1 of an operating system.
Successive enhancements and cloning of it have brought it up to the point
where Microsoft is currently marketing 0.5 of an operating system, while
Digital Research/Novell is actually marketing 0.6 of an operating system.
IBM, on the other hand, was until recently marketing 0.401 of an operating
system for those able to see through the obvious division of an operating
system by 2 but gullible enough to be fooled into buying a deci-operating
system.  Previous versions of DOS have been 0.33 or less of an operating
system.

	Although the idea of a half-act operating system may come as no
surprise, this last analysis introduces the concept of operating systems in
very small fractions.  This concept is necessary for our next analytical task,
which is rather more complicated.  Windows has no obvious hint as to operating
system content, so indirect analysis is necessary.  Fortunately, OS/2 gives us
a lead for this investigation, because OS/2 2.0, which (as explained above) is
1 whole operating system, contains Windows 3.0 (or at least, its equivalent).
We have heard recently on these newsgroups that in a few months IBM will be
releasing OS/2 2.1, which will include Windows 3.1 (or the equivalent) as
well.  Now, it should be obvious from the previous analysis that the
difference between OS/2 2.1 and OS/2 2.0 is 0.05, since OS/2 2.1 will be 1.05
times the operating system that OS/2 2.0 is.  Since we expect the addition of
Windows 3.1 to comprise most of this difference, we can call this the
operating system content of the difference attributable to the difference
between Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.0, which is obviously an addition of
0.0333333333333 of operating system content over Windows 3.0 relative to what
it has.  Now, since what is an 0.05 addition to OS/2 2.0, which is a whole
operating system, is an 0.0333333333333 addition to Windows 3.0, we must (in
order to determine the operating system content of Windows 3.0) divide 0.05 by
0.0333333333333, which gives us the astounding answer that Windows 3.0 is 1.5
of an operating system!

	So there you have it, folks:  that's the way the world is.

-- 
|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu