🚀 go-pugleaf

William Taylor wrote:

> What is modern about NT or unix? NT is "not quite" a microkernel OS. It

MS call their architecture 'client/server' and has many concepts wich is 
a newer approach than the CMU microkernel released in the 80'ies.

The NT team didn't choose to go fully microkernel as the OS would consume
even more CPU as it will be much more context switching. Instead they
(togehther with some of the top researchers of the orginal microkernel
team) desgined a compromise between performance and a 'true' microkernel
design.

> is not OO. OLE is "not quite" OO. NT is modem *for MS* because it is not

The internal architecture of NT is in act beased totally on objects and
mnupilations of them (even if it isn't written in C++).

Yes, OLE is not true object oriented. But back in time then it was released
it was the first kinf od that technology who was brougth to the market in
any wider scale.

OpenDoc was releasd not very long ago and will for the first time be part
of any standard shipment with an OS _this week_ (in the latest MacOS System
7.5 Update 2.0 release). 

> a copy of CP/M, but compared to Spring, NeXTstep or QNX it is dated. MS

Spring is an internal research OS at Sun who never will enter the market
(just like MS and IBM has many internal research OSes and projects). Some
of the techonology that Sun has learned in Spring will however be moved
to Solaris in the future (but it still won't be a new OS)

NextStep is old BSD code retrofitted on the CMU microkernel. The thing
who was really new (and also very brilliant) about Nextstep was it's
excellent develpoing environment.

QNX is a realtime version of Unix (but a very good one).

> is good at appropriating the necessary buzz words for marketing purposes,
> but they seem to always go only halfway with their software. UNIX? It is
> 25 years old. Not quite modern in my book although I like it.

But why do you mention two Unices above (NextStep and QNX) in that case?

You can't make such general statements about Unix. Even if it has been
around for a long time it has been renwed and enhanced with a lot of
modern concepts who wasn't part of it from the beginning.
 
Also many new Unices has been designed from ground up without any old code
in it (Torvads excellent work is a proof of this).

You can't put *all* Unices under the same roof!

> In Apple's case the needs of their customers currently don't dictate the
> need for an OS comparable to UNIX. In addition to their software, their
> hardware is UNIQUE...

[ apple advertisng sniped ]

Ok, to get back to the PowerPC again. How does it stack up against the
new 400MHz Alphas from Digital?

Does they even have any chanse at all to compete performance wise?

It seems like DEC Alpha and SGI MIPS is the winning architectures in the
high performance race!

Best regards,

m a r t i n  n

-- 
Martin Nisshagen          martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)    "verdi + callas = 
MTS Technology, Sweden    http://www.mts.se/martin     100% pleasure..."