🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.windows.ms
Article #412

Re: Windows NT

#412
From: Nico de Vries.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 07:30
76 lines
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!nevries
References: <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