Re: Mach vs. NT?

Article View: comp.os.mach

Article #1067

#1067

From: Jeff Henshaw
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:02

32 lines
1624 bytes

In article  <Bz2LFA.7qM@eis.calstate.edu>,
cwilder@eis.calstate.edu (Charlotte Wilder) writes...

| reissell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juhani Reissell) writes:
| > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that Windows NT
| > was at least loosely based on mach. The meaning of this is a bit vague
| > to me, maybe it just means that NT is a microkernel based OS? I too
| > would like some poijnters on this.
|
| I don't know if NT is "loosely" based on Mach, but I do know that NT will
| be a microkernel based operating system.  

I think it would be safer to say that NT is "loosely based on
Mach concepts" since some of the ideas (like a microkernel
architecture) carry over.  NT also has a variety of subsystems
to deal with specific modes of operation.  For example, Win32
governs, while subsystems to handle Win16 (windows 3.x) apps,
OS/2 1.x character-mode apps, and POSIX apps are handled by
their respective subsystem.  

A book entitled _Inside_Windows_NT_ is available at bookstores
and covers many of the NT concepts pretty well.  Some may want
to have a look at it.


       ,       |
               |/\
______/| eff__/| / enshaw______________________________
       |/        \/
      /|                         jhenshaw@microsoft.com 
      \|                   not a microsoft spokesperson

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jhenshaw

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jhenshaw
From: jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff Henshaw)
Subject: Re: Mach vs. NT?
Message-ID: <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com>
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:02:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 33