Are we talking causative factors here? No doubt, the console subsystem was built to emulate DOS and in general be as close to character-mode (DOS or otherwise) as possible. Microsoft would not build a Unix or Linux emulator, they would (did) build a DOS emulator.
As for console applications - no, they''re not DOS emulators, of course. They run in Win32 and simply use the console for output. However, to the user, they behave like character-mode programs.
And that''s what most of us really care about, isn''t it? The console applications are full fledged win32 applications, but we''re not talking about them; we''re talking about the subsystem and its cause. Its cause was to
a) ALlow old DOS programs to be run, and, consequently,
b) Allow programmers to make character-mode programs under Win32.
I suspect the only reason Microsoft decided to allow the public to access the console subsystem in Win32 was because they really didn''t want to throw out all that old code that called printf and scanf and the rest of the console functions to do its work.
To back me up here, Win 3.1 didn''t expose its console system...I don''t believe.
HWND of console
Since you haven't argued against my "experiment," I assume that you believe it. 
You acknowledge the "otherwise" bit, then. You should also acknowledge that OS/2's console is equally similar to DOS as Windows'. And since the Win32 implementations of Windows came after OS/2 (in fact NT was originally going to be another version of OS/2), why don't you (not the generic "you") call it an OS/2 emulator? I believe that since character mode is not inherent to DOS, just call it character-mode or the console or whatever else, rather than saying it's a x emulator, where x is whatever it happens to look like; this is particularly pertinent when many things happen to look like x.
I don't think you could call Windows' (or OS/2's) console an emulation of DOS any more than you can call Quake x's console an emulation of DOS.
Certainly what "most of us really care about" is that they're character-mode programs. But I feel it's harmful to associate them with DOS in any way because it allows most people to equate "console" with "DOS" in their heads, and clearly there is no unique correlation along those lines.
So, I think it's best just to call it the console. Forget DOS or OS/2 or whatever else it happens to look like. It's a console.
It's like how we shouldn't call sugary carbonated beverages originally derived from an African nut by the name "Coke." They are "colas," since some colas are Pepsi and some actually are Coke and some are RC, and some are that horrible crap you get at Sam's or Wal-Mart.
So, it's a console.
Edited by - merlin9x9 on August 3, 2001 12:53:44 PM
quote:
...the console subsystem was built to emulate DOS and in general be as close to character-mode (DOS or otherwise) as possible.
You acknowledge the "otherwise" bit, then. You should also acknowledge that OS/2's console is equally similar to DOS as Windows'. And since the Win32 implementations of Windows came after OS/2 (in fact NT was originally going to be another version of OS/2), why don't you (not the generic "you") call it an OS/2 emulator? I believe that since character mode is not inherent to DOS, just call it character-mode or the console or whatever else, rather than saying it's a x emulator, where x is whatever it happens to look like; this is particularly pertinent when many things happen to look like x.
I don't think you could call Windows' (or OS/2's) console an emulation of DOS any more than you can call Quake x's console an emulation of DOS.
Certainly what "most of us really care about" is that they're character-mode programs. But I feel it's harmful to associate them with DOS in any way because it allows most people to equate "console" with "DOS" in their heads, and clearly there is no unique correlation along those lines.
So, I think it's best just to call it the console. Forget DOS or OS/2 or whatever else it happens to look like. It's a console.
It's like how we shouldn't call sugary carbonated beverages originally derived from an African nut by the name "Coke." They are "colas," since some colas are Pepsi and some actually are Coke and some are RC, and some are that horrible crap you get at Sam's or Wal-Mart.
So, it's a console.
Edited by - merlin9x9 on August 3, 2001 12:53:44 PM
By the way, if I''m not mistaken, Windows 3.x and earlier didn''t have a console subsystem at all. Back in those days, since DOS was always there, I imagine that they decided that there was no point to re-implementing what was already there. So, if you wanted character-mode, you either did it in your GUI yourself, or make an actual DOS app.
So we''re arguing about names, not origins?
And yes, Win 3.1 did have a console subsystem and a VM. In fact, Win16''s console was a redirection of the DOS console. As far as I remember.
I could be entirely wrong!
And yes, Win 3.1 did have a console subsystem and a VM. In fact, Win16''s console was a redirection of the DOS console. As far as I remember.
I could be entirely wrong!
quote:
So we're arguing about names, not origins?
Does it matter?
It's sort of both, isn't it?
Either way, I say that we should all just call it the console. If you want to talk about origins and argue that the Windows console exists to cater to something from DOS, then you could also argue the same thing about DOS with respect to CP/M or OS/2. All three have similar consoles and very similar commands. OS/2 evolved from DOS, and Win32 evolved from OS/2. So, since this is Win32 we're talking about, how come we're not saying that the Windows console is an emulation of OS/2? Why? Because, I think we're used to understanding that OS/2 is its own operating system. But we're still programmed to think that Windows and DOS are inseperable, so as soon as we see something that's DOS-like, we call it DOS or say it's like DOS. Again, console were never unique to DOS, or OS/2, or Unix, or Quake. A console is just a console, just in the same way that a GUI is a GUI (and not an emulation of a Macintosh, or GEM, or OS/2 Presentation Manager, or that original Xerox prototype).
It's just a console.
quote:
And yes, Win 3.1 did have a console subsystem and a VM. In fact, Win16's console was a redirection of the DOS console. As far as I remember.
I could be entirely wrong!
And you might be right, too. Well, if Windows API functions such as AllocConsole and GetConsoleScreenBufferInfo existed in Win16, then there must have been a console subsystem to some extent. However, I don't know how long those functions have been around—my guess is that they were introduced with Win32.
Edited by - merlin9x9 on August 3, 2001 4:55:04 PM
Might we at least agree that consoles are cool? I don''t know about you, but I type lots faster than I can click and drag a mouse.
quote:
By the way, thank you for being a good sport and not, say, deleting my posts.
Wow. That was petty. I''d be hurt if I actually cared about whether or not you think I''m right. To be honest, I don''t, and I try to moderate on a professional level. I have nothing to prove here, I''m learning as well, and Dave has never told me that it''s my job to be right 100% of the time. Not that I think I''m wrong on this. To be honest I''m kind of amused that someone could be such a crusader for something this simple/unimportant/ambiguous.
The main reasons I say that when I get questions like this in my forum are:
1) a lot of stuff Gayle and I went over that I don''t care to repeat.
2) The fact that I''m trying to get a point across to a newbie that the console isn''t meant to do DirectX in, or get a device context in, or basically do anything other than text-based programs, and that to force it to do otherwise will be a lot more trouble than it''s worth.
Split hairs all you want, I''m pretty sure the original poster will be quite happy using a Win32 application rather than a console one, and I''m going to continue thinking of it as a DOS emulator for my own convenience.
-fel
Petty? No. You took it way too personally. I was just joking, which is why I added the smiley face (or at least intended to, if I hadn''t).
I know you''re a fine moderator.
Nobody ever said you had to be right 100% of the time—and no one can be.
To call crusading over this issue irrelevant or whatever else is purely a matter of opinion. Clearly it''s irrelevant to you and I suppose just about everyone else around here, but I happen to think that it''s important to absorb as much knowledge as possible and to be correct about things. That''s my view and nobody ever said you had to share it. And never did I call anyone any names or otherwise belittle them for what they thought on this issue, so I''m not the bad guy you seem to think I am. I''m only bad for having made such a point about what most people consider to be a subtlety.
I''m sure he will be happy about that. In fact, hadn''t I mentioned using AllocConsole and FreeConsole to get the functionality we assumed he wanted? As I recall mentioning, it''s a great trick to get a console window in a GUI app. Maybe it was another thread I said that in.
You go right ahead considering that, just as I''ll continue to argue that it''s not. You may recall that some time ago in this whole exchange I''d mentioned that it wasn''t worth arguing because nobody''s opinion would change; I only continued arguing because someone else continued the argument.
I know you''re a fine moderator.
Nobody ever said you had to be right 100% of the time—and no one can be.
To call crusading over this issue irrelevant or whatever else is purely a matter of opinion. Clearly it''s irrelevant to you and I suppose just about everyone else around here, but I happen to think that it''s important to absorb as much knowledge as possible and to be correct about things. That''s my view and nobody ever said you had to share it. And never did I call anyone any names or otherwise belittle them for what they thought on this issue, so I''m not the bad guy you seem to think I am. I''m only bad for having made such a point about what most people consider to be a subtlety.
I''m sure he will be happy about that. In fact, hadn''t I mentioned using AllocConsole and FreeConsole to get the functionality we assumed he wanted? As I recall mentioning, it''s a great trick to get a console window in a GUI app. Maybe it was another thread I said that in.
You go right ahead considering that, just as I''ll continue to argue that it''s not. You may recall that some time ago in this whole exchange I''d mentioned that it wasn''t worth arguing because nobody''s opinion would change; I only continued arguing because someone else continued the argument.
Don''t make it look like I''m the culprit here, because your initial statement was a challenge.
Reread what felisandria wrote.
Dat''s dat.
Reread what felisandria wrote.
Dat''s dat.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement