Article View: comp.os.mach
Article #1090Re: Mach vs. NT?
From: gip2 course
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:33
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:33
31 lines
1618 bytes
1618 bytes
In <BzG3Gw.1s6@alsvid.une.edu.au> mark@alsvid.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett Internet: mark@arvak.une.edu.au Phone: +61 66 20 3859) writes: >From article <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com>, by jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff Henshaw): >> >> In article <Bz2LFA.7qM@eis.calstate.edu>, >> cwilder@eis.calstate.edu (Charlotte Wilder) writes... >> | >> | 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 > WindowsNT is based on the Mach3.0 micro kernel!!!!!!!! Any references? > 1. such a discussion is null and void since mach is not an > operating system, and WindowNT is! Mach is an operating system, but not a 'complete' OS. I.e. it doesn't do everything but only several things. > 2. even worse, mach is part of windowsNT Again, can you give any proof? > 1. Go and do some reading before hitting the keyboard with replies Read what?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<BzGAoL.1x4@sci.kun.nl>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!gip200References:
<1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com> <BzG3Gw.1s6@alsvid.une.edu.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!gip200 From: gip200@sci.kun.nl (gip2 course) Subject: Re: Mach vs. NT? Message-ID: <BzGAoL.1x4@sci.kun.nl> Sender: news@sci.kun.nl (News owner) Nntp-Posting-Host: blauw.sci.kun.nl Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 References: <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com> <BzG3Gw.1s6@alsvid.une.edu.au> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:33:56 GMT Lines: 32