Linux "bloated and huge" says Linus

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by incognito9

I thought Windows was based on Mach?

OS/2 from IBM since it began as collaborative work, then it split up and NT went its own way. NT in its first version was known as OS/2 3.0

NT is a cross-breed between monolith and microlith kernel, thus it's a hybrid

[consused]

Originally Posted by microchip8

OS/2 from IBM since it began as collaborative work...

Well that's debatable. Early Windows e.g Win 3.x was based on DOS and didn't really multitask - just gave the user that illusion. Whereas OS/2 was a full multitaking system. I believe it's true that Microsoft collaborated with IBM on IBM OS/2 (2.0?) at some point for a while, then conveniently left to go it alone (prior to Win 95).

NT in its first version was known as OS/2 3.0

Wouldn't that have caused trademark problems with IBM OS/2??

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by consused

Well that's debatable. Early Windows e.g Win 3.x was based on DOS and didn't really multitask - just gave the user that illusion. Whereas OS/2 was a full multitaking system. I believe it's true that Microsoft collaborated with IBM on IBM OS/2 (2.0?) at some point for a while, then conveniently left to go it alone (prior to Win 95).

Wouldn't that have caused trademark problems with IBM OS/2??

There's nothing debatable here since I specifically talked about NT and not on Win based on DOS. MS in the past had two different OSes, one based on NT (which I was talking about), the other on DOS as underlying, which I wasn't talking about at all. Since those based on DOS underlying are no longer supported nor developed anymore and more and more they become irrelevant as MS has been focusing on NT based ones for a while now, I couldn't care less for them. I also don't know much about their kernels....

[microchip8]

As for trademark problems, no. IBM agreed to collaborate with MS on NT to develop a system compatible with OS/2 and POSIX It continued parallel development on the other DOS-based systems

[pontke]

Originally Posted by microchip8

Hint: Windows is hybrid and so is OS X

True. I concede on that point. I guess IMHO I really don't place NT in the "hybrid" category, even though it was designed to be hybrid because it was done so poorly. Hybrid done right should not suffer from so many security and stability problems.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by pontke

True. I concede on that point. I guess IMHO I really don't place NT in the "hybrid" category, even though it was designed to be hybrid because it was done so poorly. Hybrid done right should not suffer from so many security and stability problems.

Being a hybrid kernel has little to do with how secure or stable it is. Hybrid means that the kernel has feature sets both from monolith and microlith designs which can be argued to incorporate the best of both worlds, if it was done right in the first place. Security and stability is more related to how it was implemented in the first place. Believe it or not, the current NT kernel is actually very robust and has a superior ACL implementation compared to Linux. The problem with Windows (security/stability/performance/etc) as a whole lies mostly in its Win32 API and backwards compatibility and also in the direct built-in in-kernel graphics system where if it crashes, it takes the whole OS with it. In recent years though this has been improved a lot and Win tends to crash less than previously, compared to the Win versions with DOS underlyings, which honestly were a bag of turds

[consused]

Originally Posted by microchip8

There's nothing debatable here since I specifically talked about NT and not on Win based on DOS. MS in the past had two different OSes, one based on NT (which I was talking about), the other on DOS as underlying, which I wasn't talking about at all. Since those based on DOS underlying are no longer supported nor developed anymore and more and more they become irrelevant as MS has been focusing on NT based ones for a while now, I couldn't care less for them. I also don't know much about their kernels....

I understood your previous post to say that Windows was based on "OS/2 from IBM". You then went on to talk about "collaborative work" and mentioned NT. It's true that Microsoft worked on IBM's OS/2 product. It's the collaboration that's debatable and still is. OS/2 was marketed only as an IBM product. Microsoft worked with/for IBM on the product that "was to be known as OS/2 3.0". That means it wasn't known at the time, and anyway that would have been under an IBM codename until product announcement. Microsoft didn't use the name "OS/2 3.0", had long since split with IBM, and announced its own product as "NT". The joke was it was so long coming, it was "Not There". Therefore your statement:

NT in its first version was known as OS/2 3.0

is somewhat misleading and inaccurate.

You can even check that on Wikipaedia, by very careful reading. So the answer you gave here:

As for trademark problems, no.

is also just plain wrong. Collaboration doesn't make for ownership. If Microsoft had used IBM's product name, there would have been a big problem.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by consused

I understood your previous post to say that Windows was based on "OS/2 from IBM". You then went on to talk about "collaborative work" and mentioned NT. It's true that Microsoft worked on IBM's OS/2 product. It's the collaboration that's debatable and still is. OS/2 was marketed only as an IBM product. Microsoft worked with/for IBM on the product that "was to be known as OS/2 3.0". That means it wasn't known at the time, and anyway that would have been under an IBM codename until product announcement. Microsoft didn't use the name "OS/2 3.0", had long since split with IBM, and announced its own product as "NT". The joke was it was so long coming, it was "Not There". Therefore your statement:
is somewhat misleading and inaccurate.

You can even check that on Wikipaedia, by very careful reading. So the answer you gave here:
is also just plain wrong. Collaboration doesn't make for ownership. If Microsoft had used IBM's product name, there would have been a big problem.

Microsoft decided to create a portable operating system, compatible with OS/2 and POSIX support and with multiprocessing in October 1988.[8] When development started in November 1989, Windows NT was to be known as OS/2 3.0,[9] the third version of the operating system developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM. In addition to working on three versions of OS/2, Microsoft continued parallel development of the DOS-based and less resource-demanding Windows environment. When Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, it was eventually so successful that Microsoft decided to change the primary application programming interface for the still unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) from an extended OS/2 API to an extended Windows API. This decision caused tension between Microsoft and IBM and the collaboration ultimately fell apart. IBM continued OS/2 development alone while Microsoft continued work on the newly renamed Windows NT. Though neither operating system would immediately be as popular as Microsoft's MS-DOS or Windows products, Windows NT would eventually be far more successful than OS/2.

Windows NT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[microchip8]

still unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) <- this was the very first *internal* version of NT

[microchip8]

To add to the above since I have a bad habit of clicking too quickly on the reply button

The very first *unreleased, internal* version of NT was called OS/2 3.0, which would have been its official name if it ever came out. When MS went on to change OS/2 APIs with Windows APIs, it changed the OS/2 3.0 name to only NT (to avoid legal issues I guess) but still that NT carries a lot from the OS/2 3.0 design, with exception of the APIs