Article View: comp.windows.ms
Article #412Re: Windows NT
From: Nico de Vries.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 07:30
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 07:30
76 lines
3096 bytes
3096 bytes
>In article <1992Mar31.033116.16208@descartes.waterloo.edu> jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu writes: >> >>The following advantages are part of Windows NT (to be released by end 1992) How secure is this release date? I mean 3.1 is very late compared to its release date isn't it. >> >>1) 32 bit, pre-emptive multi-tasking, multi-threading, multi-processing >> (per thread) OS In other words the same as OS/2 2.1. OS/2 2.0 has most of these today BTW. >>2) Is OS/2, Win 16/32 bit, POSIX (1001.3), DOS compatibl Is the OS/2 1.3 or OS/2 2.0 support. Are you sure about DOS compatibility, I remeber to have read other things about DOS compatibility in Windows/NT. >>3) Supports named pipes, anonymous pipes, shared memory, semaphores, >> mail slots, queues and other forms of inter-process communications What is the advantage of this compared to DDE and OLE? >>5) Is C2 level secure Not impressed. Are they going to raise this in the future or is C2 the limit. >>6) Built in peer-to-peer networking Like OS/2 2.0, better, worse? >>7) Device independant colour module Sounds slow. How are they going make this speedy. >>8) Micro-kernal design Great! (I mean that) >>9) Memory mapped file i/o Great! >>10) Is a client-server design Will it interact with X-windows (like DesqView/X)? >>11) Portable to Intel, MIPS, DEC (Alpha) architectures >> (50 K replace-able code...could go elsewhere) How is this combined with the multi processing claim? >12) Probably still requires that you buy the $1000 developer's kit so you can > have those wonderful libraries. What brings the question how expensive is NT itself? Don't take me wrong. I like the design of NT and sure hope it is going to be a succes (either as OS/2 3.0 of Windows/NT). But I am sceptical until I see a public availabble program (bot just a beta). I have been sceptical of OS/2 2.0 too but IBM had a pleasant surprize there. I can't get rid of the impression the Windows marketing devision is using NT to hide the fact that OS/2 2.0 is better than Windows 3.1 (at COMDEX OS/2 2.0 running 3.1 specific software has alreade been demonstrated BTW). Nico de Vries --------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl VOICE : +31-3404-24931 BBS : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries) IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion; - O Place reserved for Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please. | funny joke. Sugestions I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH. \_/ apreciated.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2333@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!accucx!nevriesReferences:
<odpYhNe00iUy02mFwp@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Mar31.033116.16208@descartes.waterloo.edu> <grendel.702658219@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!accucx!nevries From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: Windows NT Message-ID: <2333@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> Date: 8 Apr 92 07:30:56 GMT References: <odpYhNe00iUy02mFwp@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Mar31.033116.16208@descartes.waterloo.edu> <grendel.702658219@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> Followup-To: comp.windows.ms Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht Lines: 76