Your Favorite Application

Discussion in 'Computer Science & Culture' started by jonhogan, Feb 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wrong Robot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    Garageband

    I use it everyday

    Other notable apps:
    Safari
    iChat
    Mail.app
    TextEdit
    Graphic Converter
    Stickies
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Wrong Robot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    Isn't windows just an application though? I seem to recall that older windows weren't really core operating systems, more like applications...maybe this has changed with XP? I'm not very versed in these things.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    excellent point but yeah, I think win95 (maybe it was 98 or technically NT or something) was Microsoft's first supposed core operating system. dos is now an application in windows rather than the previous relationship of windows being a basically a DOS app. Like you mentioned, previous to one of those, windows was indeed an app comparable to how "xwindows" is really an app on unix or vax or whatever.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Emacs is not just a text editor... It has its own programming language, shell, mail client, etc
     
  8. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    O.S Consists of SHell +Kernel which enables interaction with Hardware.I hope Strydy Posts and shows it in his Trademark cute diagrams,with inner core being hardware then Kernel and then SHell,EMAIL CLIENT as you talk Oki is an application,You could say E-mac is a complex,multipurpose application,but no its not an O.S. i am afraid.


    bye!
     
  9. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    It's a joke... It's fairly common to refer to Emacs as its own operating system, but applications such as VMware suggest that OS's don't have to directly refer to the hardware. In fact, the NachOS operating system runs in simulation.
     
  10. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    WIN 3.1, 95 and 98 can still consider as MS-DOS add-ons because they still boot from DOS and can shutdown back to DOS. However, WIN NT, ME, 2000 and XP does not require MS-DOS to boot, so they are true independent operation systems.

    For me, I think edonkey 2000 is my favor app.
     
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,588
    Daktaklakpak: Win3.x is a DOS Executable, but has many of the characteristics of an OS. Technically, I suppose it could be called a DOS application. Win95 & Win98 start from the Boot sector and are true OS's.
     
  12. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    No, you still run WIN.COM to start WIN 3.x, 95 and 98.
     
  13. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Long ago when Dinos were around, There was a member of Sciforums,DakTakLakpak...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    welcome back pal!


    bye!
     
  14. Neurocomp2003 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    MATLAB...first do the math in there than change the code to run it in say C++
     
  15. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Well, seeing that I just bought vs.net and I'm studying it and scheduled for an intense class using it in the next couple of weeks, I better consider it the best app for me for the moment. It actually does look to be pretty damn decent, perhaps the best IDE ever made. I'm going to go for the vb.net but C# sure sounds interesting. I am so excited about this stuff I could have a cow.
     
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    So as not to disapoint Zion, I whiped up a diagram from a HND class I had some time back, that just points out the structure of where OS fits.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    things like Text Editors are Applications, Windows and DOS are both OS (although Windows had preportion built ontop of DOS you have to note that it was an Upgrade to DOS by introducing GUI to IBM and compatible PC systems.
    (Although Both Archimedez and Macintosh had working GUI's already)

    It was just that DOS was already widely distributed in the business world for compatibilty between databases and programming.

    You'll notice in the diagram a red dotted area between Software and Hardware which covers the Transition pieces that have both Software and Hardware involved in the makeup.

    The overall intension of the diagram is to show that you can't run an Application unless it's run on an OS which is then communicatng with the hardware. (This is why Programming Languages are at the OS level because otherwise you would be writing applications with applications, which in turn would mean you would need something software [namely a driver] to parse the data to the hardware)
     
  17. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,588
    Stryderunknown: The following does not seem correct to me.
    Classifying Programming Languages, Drivers, and some (not all) Utilities as system software seems reasonable, which is what your diagram does.

    I object to the remark which followed your diagram.

    Device drivers are very special, and probably should be viewed as part of (or an extension to) the OS, although referring to them as systems software seems reasonable. For some systems, all the drivers are built into the OS, making them seem like an integral part of the OS. This is typical of a mainframe OS. It is impractical (impossible?) in the current IBM PC world, due to the large number of devices which can be part of a PC-based system.

    Compilers, assemblers, and especially interpretive language processors are applications. They are very sophisticated language translators. Compilers and assemblers translate the language used by the programmer (the input data) into the machine language processed by the CPU (the output data). Interpretive language processors are a somewhat different animal than compilers, and I will say no more about them.

    For some obvious reasons, a specific implementation of a compiler must be tailored to the OS and the hardware. It must produce machine language for a specific system and the format of the data (machine language program) must conform to the specifications of the OS which reads the program from some medium and prepares it for execution. This justifies calling them systems software, but does not preclude calling them applications.

    What is wrong with an application creating or processing an application? When it is not being executed, a program (Id est: An application) can be viewed as data. Programs (applications) process data. That is not some mysterious concept, requiring a compiler to be viewed as something other than an application.

    Your remark about something (a driver) to parse the data to the hardware does not make sense in the above context relating to language processors.

    It seems proper to catagorize utilities like defraggers and disk analysis programs as systems software, but there are various programs often referred to as utilities which are more properly categorized as applications programs. Backup software and file managers like Ztree are typically called utilities and are basically applications programs. Utilities like defraggers and disk analysis programs are considered systems software because they deal with the hardware and OS data at a more fundamental level than those programs called ordinary applications.
     
  18. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't even believe the assembler is part of the kernel. A program would be delineated only by its executable code and purpose, not how the sourcecode was produced. In some operating systems, though, the C compiler could be considered part of the Operating System. This is what the GNU foundation says, at least.

    Still, compilers and assemblers are not applications but system software separate from the kernel(this what Stroustrup says when he gives a definition of C++ as a tool for producing system software). When someone uses the word application, they refer to the IDE over top of the compiler or their word processor.
     
  19. androgen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    44
    Winamp, Nero Burning Rom, Photoshop
     
  20. jonhogan Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    How does an application become a favorite? Anyone have ideas? I imagine there are three main reasons:

    Fullfills a need
    Functionality
    Design

    I don't know just asking...
     
  21. androgen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    44
    it has to have all the features you actually want to use, and have the rest of the features not get in your way all the time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page