RSSDaniel's Profile
Member since August 29, 2002
- Name
Daniel Hamilton
- Location:
US
Favorite Files
No favorite files added yet
Recent Posts
-
Comment - Vista Premium Requirements Detailed
(Jun 20, 2006 - 1:05 AM)
Uh...no it wasn't. It was meant to be, but the relationship was ended prior to anything becoming of it. NT was done totally inside MS, as stated earlier, by a team lead by Dave Cutler. Mr. Cutler was hired away from Digital by MS along with several engineers.
NT was originally to be called OS/2 3.00, back in 1990 when OS/2 2.00 development was first started. It was decided that IBM would take over OS/2 2.0 development and MS would do 3.00 development. The plan was to basically start from scratch with 3.00...and they did. The only thing is, by the time MS really got started on NT, they and IBM had pretty much parted ways. This explains the OS/2 1.x subsystem in Windows NT and Windows 2000. The reasoning to start from scratch with 3.0 was because of bad design decisions IBM made during 1.x development with how it deals with 32-bit code (and 386 processors). OS/2 2.0 is based on 1.x and so was a Frankinstein-like mixture of 16-bit and 32-bit code. The desktop code didn't go 32-bit until 2.1, and it wasn't really fixed right until 3.0 (Warp).
Windows 2000 IS Windows NT, version 5.0 actually. XP is Windows NT 5.1 and Vista is NT 6.0. The lineage is very clear when you look at fundamentals of the OSes. Microsoft has layered on new APIs, changed the kernel driver models, and moved things back and forth between kernel and user mode.
Much as changed, but much is still the same...which is a good thing. IMHO NT was a very well designed OS with a very effective hybrid microkernel design. -
Comment - Amazon One-Click Patent Under Review
(May 18, 2006 - 4:52 PM)
I own the patent for powering on a computer with a single button-press. Start paying up, chumps. :)
-
Comment - Microsoft Delays Vista Until 2007
(Mar 22, 2006 - 12:40 PM)
You said:
Windows 2000 was not based on NT 4. NT 4 even though it came out after Windows 95 lacked Plug and Play, and was purely designed as workstation software.
Uh...that's nonsense. Windows NT is Windows NT. Windows is developed just like any other software, it is branched for releases. Windows NT 5.0 (2000) is most definately based on NT 4.0. The build numbers tell the story. AND NT 4.0 did have PnP support, it was a seperate install located on the NT 4.0 CD! :)
You have to understand the concept of a CODE BASE (or TRUNK), and how a code base evolves over time. Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x is a different code base than Windows NT 3.x, 4.x, 5.x, 6.x. Now code was ported back and forth between these two code bases thru time. Windows 98 actually got a slither of NT kernal functionality for device drivers (WDM). Windows NT 4.0 got it's desktop code from Windows 95. But both remained two seperate code bases. When Microsoft does a release, they FORK off the trunk of the Windows code base, and that branch is maintained for the life of that product. Often fixes for a branch will make it's way back into the trunk as well, and will be part of later releases.
This is it:
Original Windows:
1.01 -> 1.02 -> 1.03 -> 1.04 > 2.03 -> 2.10 -> 2.11 -> 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.11 -> 4.0.950 (95) -> 4.0.1111 (95OSR2) -> 4.0.1998 (98) -> 4.0.2222 (98SE) -> 4.9.3000 (ME) (end of line)
Windows NT:
3.1.511 -> 3.5.887 -> 3.51.1057 -> 4.0.1381 -> 5.0.2195 (2000) -> 5.1.2600 (XP) -> 5.2.3790 (2003/2003R2) -> 6.0.5308 (Vista Feb CTP) -> (the saga continues...) -
Comment - Microsoft Delays Vista Until 2007
(Mar 22, 2006 - 12:21 PM)
This is it:
Original Windows:
1.01 -> 1.02 -> 1.03 -> 1.04 > 2.03 -> 2.10 -> 2.11 -> 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.11 -> 4.0.950 (95) -> 4.0.1111 (95OSR2) -> 4.0.1998 (98) -> 4.0.2222 (98SE) -> 4.9.3000 (ME) (end of line)
Windows NT:
3.1.511 -> 3.5.887 -> 3.51.1057 -> 4.0.1381 -> 5.0.2195 (2000) -> 5.1.2600 (XP) -> 5.2.3790 (2003/2003R2) -> 6.0.5308 (Vista Feb CTP) -> (the saga continues...)