While we're swerving off-topic to correct innaccuracies:
>> I dont see the difference between this OS and XP
> Except for say UAC, all the DRM and the fact that the thing runs slower on more powerful hardware then XP?
and the totally re-written kernel?
>> Of course if all you read is slashdot you would also think that NT is just a unix wannabe
> It employs many design concepts from *Nix that weren't present in 9X so in a way it is very similar to Unix. Now granted there are only a finite way of solving problems present in Windows 9X so making it more Unix like is one of the ways to make it more secure.
About the only Unix-like feature in NT (compared to 9x anyway) is pre-emptive process scheduling. In fact NT 3.51 was the bastard offspring of VAX/VMS, although I suppose VMS has some common heritage with Unix way back in the mists. And then NT4.0 went all monolithic and thready, so moving even further from Unix.
>> and that XP is just 2000 with fisher price colors
> It is, it is basically Windows 2K with a shiny theme on it much like how Vista is like XP with a bunch of crap thrown on it and a shiny GUI.
No doubt the big 'selling point' of Vista is the eye-candy, but it sure ain't NT6.0 (in the way that 2000 is NT5.0, and XP is NT5.1). Actually I believe Vista is a whole new bloodline: like DOS -> 95 -> 98 -> ME (-> extinct); then (VMS ->) NT -> 2000 -> XP; now Vista (sine prole).
What's new since NetBEUI is that they are trying to get their lock-in format actually approved as a standard. This could be read two ways:
a) they now really believe their monopoly is a good thing for the world, and they just want official endorsement of that position, for the benefit of misguided governments that still doubt it
b) interoperability has come so far since the SNA/OSI/IP wars, that they need to camouflage their latest upgrade/lock-in ploy as a 'standard' to be able to market it against genuine open standards
I incline towards b); they may be dumb, but they aren't stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're swerving off-topic to correct innaccuracies:
>> I dont see the difference between this OS and XP
> Except for say UAC, all the DRM and the fact that the thing runs slower on more powerful hardware then XP?
and the totally re-written kernel?
>> Of course if all you read is slashdot you would also think that NT is just a unix wannabe
> It employs many design concepts from *Nix that weren't present in 9X so in a way it is very similar to Unix. Now granted there are only a finite way of solving problems present in Windows 9X so making it more Unix like is one of the ways to make it more secure.
About the only Unix-like feature in NT (compared to 9x anyway) is pre-emptive process scheduling. In fact NT 3.51 was the bastard offspring of VAX/VMS, although I suppose VMS has some common heritage with Unix way back in the mists. And then NT4.0 went all monolithic and thready, so moving even further from Unix.
>> and that XP is just 2000 with fisher price colors
> It is, it is basically Windows 2K with a shiny theme on it much like how Vista is like XP with a bunch of crap thrown on it and a shiny GUI.
No doubt the big 'selling point' of Vista is the eye-candy, but it sure ain't NT6.0 (in the way that 2000 is NT5.0, and XP is NT5.1). Actually I believe Vista is a whole new bloodline: like DOS -> 95 -> 98 -> ME (-> extinct); then (VMS ->) NT -> 2000 -> XP; now Vista (sine prole).
What's new since NetBEUI is that they are trying to get their lock-in format actually approved as a standard. This could be read two ways:
a) they now really believe their monopoly is a good thing for the world, and they just want official endorsement of that position, for the benefit of misguided governments that still doubt it
b) interoperability has come so far since the SNA/OSI/IP wars, that they need to camouflage their latest upgrade/lock-in ploy as a 'standard' to be able to market it against genuine open standards
I incline towards b); they may be dumb, but they aren't stupid.