Al Klein said:
And that makes you an expert on micro OSs.
So would reading the bible make you God?
You are not comparing like with like.
it is a potato!
no, you simpleton, it is a Solanum Tuberosum!!
The name does not modify the object, the object does not select the name
except by convention. Convention requires a tacit agreement. You cannot
argue exclusivity to redefine convention. Convention may be wrong but
the agreement still exists.
The string ms-windows is not the same as the string ms-dos
one algorithm would conclude the difference is +"windows" -"dos"
another could conclude ...^w^i^n..^w.
I have some disks with MS-DOS printed on them.
I have an XP disk, the word DOS appears nowhere on the disk or documents.
It does say 'the most reliable , capable Windows ever", which
means I suppose any future windows will be worse.
Then "you are about to experience an operating system build for the way you
work"
which is a real porky but since they have more lawyers and I suspect
the courts would defer to common use anyway I won't be pushing it.
Similarly a complaint of inappropriate description would fly like a lead
brick.
Common use of DOS in this context converges to small bit count, cli,
bios driven operating systems ( with some sort of magnetic disk ).
i.e. vaguely between bios monitors and gui.
It is a grey zone between function and specification.
Precise use of D.O.S has very limited scope. Reference to terms outside of
their scope can lead to memory dumps.
Some modeling of recipients world view may be necessary.
