Windows may take a mere 30 seconds to boot, but if you're dealing with a large raid array, you can often wait 5 minutes or more while the array goes through it's self check upon booting.
That is when you choose a better array controller the next time.
But kidding aside, your point is valid.
However if uptime is that essential in the environment you describe with the necessity of massive array, I would suggest implementing a cluster to offset the load in addition to being able to patch systems without taking the server offline.
Here are references for the truth behind the NT and OS/2 origins, and how they DID share a common codebase. Note that one of these showed me something I did not know: OS/2 ver 1 was 16 bit, but in 89 was being rewritten fully 32-bit. this was Before the split with MS, which took place in 90, at which time, ver 3.0 was on its way to completion, designed as a network server, it was 32-bit. It was this version MS forked and renamed NT. I'm only listing the majorly relevant links, and unfortunatly, the interview linked to by the slashdot story is now gone, though you can find the text if you dig a little.
Even as your own links clearly reference, OS/2 1.x and the 32bit OS/2 2.0 that was released in 1992 were DIFFERENT OS designs than OS/3 (OS/2 V3), which is where NT came from.
NT was a redesigned OS using a microkernel architecture that was developed BY Microsoft outside of the IBM partnership.
The OS/2 1.x and OS/2 2.0 projects were the joint projects between Microsoft and IBM.
OS/3, OS/2 V3, NT was a completely new OS design having no previous architectural commonalities with any other OS - especially OS/2 or DOS. From the unique modified kernel and the HAL layer, to using a portable code design and running on everything from Alpha to MIPS and x86.
Everyone knows where NT came from and was called OS/3 even on an early Alpha set of Disks I have, but ITS CODE did NOT come from the OS/2 project between IBM and Microsoft.
Ok, let me go through this with you VERY SLOWLY.:)
#1 - in correct. I have MCSE manuals here next to me for NT4. OS/2 compatability is there, the roots of the OS/2 compatibility came from the OS/2 project. this is a microsoft press book.
OS/2 Code is used in the OS/2 subsystem. But if you understood NT architecture, you would also understand that NT has the ability to layer subsystems of OSes, just like it does Win32, Win16 on Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. So even in the Win16 subsystem, it is actually running pieces of Windows 3.1 code, but that DOES NOT MEAN it is based on Windows 3.1 or Win16 just because it provides a subsystem to run these applications.
Just as in the POSIX subsystem and even the Win32 subsystem, these are layers ON TOP of the NT Kernel Layer.
For god's sake, even do a simple architectural search on the net about NT and see how it works and has no architectural similarities to OS/2.
And to further this point, the OS/2 subsystem was ripped out of Windows XP. Hence, no longer having any OS/2 support for running applications. If it was DEPENDANT or based on OS/2, don't you think WindowsXP might not be able to boot up once the OS/2 subsystem was removed?
Geesh.
#2) See above, and, I think you know a lot less about OS/2 then you think you do... OS/2 warp server has just about all the features you just mentioned. #3) OS/2 was and is 32-bit. Go look it up. As an expansion on this, why don't you go look up how OS/2 ran 16-bit windows 3.x applications - it ran it via an isolated virtual dos machine process that ran true dos and windows. this is the same system that MS used in NT to run 16-bit application, they called it Windows on Windows. This, by the way, contradicts your assertion that what OS/2 had was a compatability layer - it was a full virtual machine subsystem, exactly as the one MS had in NT. In fact, a version of OS/2 was released that was cheaper than the full version - but required you to have a copy of window 3.0 for compatability - because by not including the actual windows files with OS/2, IBM didn't have to pay MS for a windows liscense. As for it being a 'poor IBM story' - how did you get that from my post? I called NT the ugly stepsister of OS/2, I was refering directly to its lineage, not making a reference to a fairy tale or implying that OS/2 was better. Get a brain. go read some books.
Ok, where do we even begin here...
OS/2 was a 32bit OS, however in the 2.0 release in 1992 many of its device drivers were 16bit OS/2 code, not full 32bit. This carried over even to the latest OS/2 releases like Warp, where 16bit DRIVER code was still used.
It was a kludge - just like Win95 was a 16/32bit kludge.
OS/2 even had a single input cue for ALL applications. Talk about a responsive UI for a pre-emptive multitasking OS. The tagline on the box should have warned, "Sure it can multi-task, but you might have to wait 2 minutes before the previous application releases the input cue so you can click on another application or type in another window." Geesh - Even Windows95 had a multiple input cue. Again I submit to you OS/2 and NT are NOTHING alike architecturally.
Maybe you should do a bit more reading, or at least a web search, the information is OUT THERE.
As for the OS/2 Windows 3.x compatibility, there is a difference between virtualization/emulation and a layered subsystem. I suggest you do a bit of reading again. OS/2 was able to run Windows 3.x primarily through emulation and virtualization. It was not an OS subsystem.
Could you also buy a true UNIX subsystem for OS/2?(not an emulator, but natively compiled UNIX code that ran on OS/2) Could you buy a Win32 subsystem for OS/2?
No.
Now ask yourself why? Because the OS/2 architecture was never designed to do things like this. NT was designed from the ground up so that it was NOT dependant on any OS subsystem.
Microsoft could use a freaking UNIX subsystem on top of the NT k
Yes. I am singlehandedly responsible for the acronym "BSOD". And I'm sure that public knowledge of the latest round of Microsoft mega-viruses is soley due to my inability to get a USB printer working
And you missed the Linux security holes, and the Mac Updates in the past month while installing that printer as well.
You must have also missed Windows2k and WindowsXP, where the BSOD of has become virtually extinct.
Just keep your mind as closed as tight as possible, make sure nothing gets in that might change your Anti-Microsoft reality.
I think Microsoft sucks half the time, but I also see a lot of good things they have brought to the industry.
That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.
Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...
Translation: I'm employed by Microsoft and I can't admit that you've bested me.
Sorry, no affiliation. Now you only get two more guesses, make them good.
How can I respond to someone that thinks Windows is crap and evil. I won't convince you based on my knowledge or experience or independent facts, no matter how many times I type them.
You hate Windows, buy the t-shirt and just be happy with what you believe.
I know Windows(NT) is not as bad as what you believe and is on par with any OS out there. I have been in OS architecture and theory for far too long, have way too much experience in testing and development and have too many clients that entrust their entire infrastructures to my techs and my company.
But I'm sure your installation of Windows95 four years ago or botched Win2k installation is the definitive proof that Windows sucks and I can't compete with that.
Okay, stick with me here... The Mac OS GUI was out before Windows, right? Back in 1984, you could use a Mac with a mouse, and you could use Windows with... nothing - it wasn't invented yet. You had DOS and a keyboard, right?
Ok, you keep up this time...
May 1983, Microsoft introduces the MS Mouse, a two button mouse for repositioning the cursor on screen and selecting items.
Sept 1983, Microsoft Word was released; it was the first Word Processor to feature WYSIWYG, although at the time it was basically font styles on screen. But none the less, was revolutionary for the time and accredited with being the first commercial WYSIWYG Word Processor. - Source PC Magazine
Nov 1983, Microsoft announces and demonstrates Windows, a graphical environment designed to run on top of MSDOS. Due to fighting with IBM, the Top Down release, and hardware constraints of the ill powered x86 Intel processors, Windows 1.0 was not released until 1985, shortly after the release of Apple's Macintosh. Even though both companies had been demonstrating similar GUI concepts far before either product was manufactured.
Jan 1984, the Apple Macintosh was introduced with simultaneous releases of Microsoft BASIC for the Macintosh and Multiplan for the Macintosh.
Release of MS Word, Chart and File for the Macintosh came soon after the Macintosh introduction.
The MS Word concepts of select and modify were able to be fully extended with the Graphical Interface of the Macintosh, hence the introduction of select and modify WYSIWYG font and word processing formatting features. The MS Word Team of the time had further plans, such as real-time underline spellchecking, and text drag and drop within the document, but hardware performance at the time made this impossible to bring to fruition even with the faster 68k Mac CPU. - Source the MS Word Team Leader, Interview 1996
Early 1984, early realizing the closed architecture of the Macintosh System, Microsoft introduced "MacEnhancer" which provided the ability to plug non-Apple printers, modems and other devices into the Mac. This product did not take off, but prompted Apple to later adopt their own version of the product for non-Apple hardware connectivity.
Microsoft original championed the Apple Macintosh in 1984, and even Bill Gates appeared in original Macintosh brochure. (A collector's item for real Mac and Gates nerds)
Late 1985 - Early 1986, both Windows 1.0 and the Apple Macintosh were failing commercially. PC Zealots used the WIMP acronym to define GUI interfaces and the viability of a the benefits of a Graphical UI were being seriously doubted by both consumers and the computer press as being truly productive Interface approaches.
The introduction of Microsoft Excel for the Macintosh revived the Apple movement by demonstrating advantages of a graphical UI in a business setting.......
Now if you would like to explain to me again how MacWrite was the first Word Processor to introduce the concept of select and modify, I will eat your hat, as the Macintosh was not even available when MS Word for DOS was released that did offer this ability.
As for there only being DOS and a keyboard for MS-DOS, you must of missed the whole MS Mouse thing from 1983.
The other thing you are missing is that the development of the Apple Macintosh and Windows 1.0 were virtually parallel in the CUI and design concepts at the time.
Microsoft was constrained not only by the crap IBM was pulling with Top Down, but also the fact the IBM PC of 1984 was not even close to the power of the 68K Motorola Apple used.
If there were no hardware performance constraints, MS Windows 1.0 would have actually been released before or at the same time as the Macintosh.
I'm sure you had an original Mac like the rest of us, but memory does sometimes fail even the best of us.
Microsoft was a strong partner of the Macintosh, and the Excel and Word products were two of the most important busi
That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.
In your reality, I imagine it would.
Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...
Look at my Windows(r) box ! It has been turned off for the last 2 years, and never got hacked/wormed/remote exploited/root kited/etc. during this period, even without all those patches/service pack !
What a great OS !
You know if you have your electricity turned off you then don't have to worry about power spikes or blackouts then either.:)
"...turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet Connection..."
What good is a Windows server if it doesn't use Netbios over TCP/IP? I know I don't want any of my Windows boxes using any other protocol than TCP/IP, so how exactly will they communicate with each other? How will Active Directory work? That solution only works for a single standalone DESKTOP, not SERVER
Um, nope, and again nope...
Besides, notice the key words "for the Internet Connection".
Why would you have NetBIOS enabled on your network adapter that is connected to the Internet? Are you planning on sharing your Windows printer with 1,000,000 other people in the world?
Let's decrypt your logic 101 knowledge you are trying to use.
Proprietary software is theoretically inferior to open source software with regards to technical correctness, which includes security.
Gorillas are theoretically more attractive than your mother.
Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't even try to counter the theory.
However you seem to have missed the score of interviews where Steve Ballmer can't say enough to counter this theory.
Microsoft is a PR/law firm that happens to sell software.
However, Microsoft's legal team was quite small prior to the first anti-competitive investigations started by Orin Hatch (from the state of Novell and WordPerfect) in the early 90's.
Most analysts were shocked to find that Microsoft was under represented not only legally, but out of the major software companies in the early 90's, they were one of the few that didn't have congressional lobbyists.
Additionally, they had one of the smallest marketing and PR departments of any major software vendor, especially when compared vendors like IBM, WordPerfect, and Lotus in the early 90's.
Hmm... And this was at a time when they were virtually taking over the market in OSes and Office Productivity software.
So if they are only a PR/law firm, I would like to hire the same small group of lawyers and PR people they were using in the early 90's that drove their sales and stock prices through the roof.
There are anecdotes in favor of either system but the simple fact is there is no security-critical Windows machine with an uptime of more than a couple of months, since service packs invariably require a reboot. I think that ought to tell us something.
We have clients with closed systems that have run for over 600 days on NT4 servers back in 1997/1998.
However, rebooting is not a good thing for service packs and updates, I agree completely.
But it doesn't mean the OS is inherently unstable or insecure, it just means that a 30 second downtime has to be scheduled for the update.
It would be a bigger argument if the Updates required the system to be down for hours, or Windows took longer than 30secs to fully boot.
And yes, before I get flamed from the crowd, 30 seconds is pretty average on today's hardware, even Windows Servers with every feature/service imaginable turned on still boot in under 45secs on our Pentium II 400mhz systems running 256MB of RAM.
But again, I completely agree that Microsoft needs to stop the 'Please Click to Reboot' crap for updates. With the NT architecture, there are so few times this is really necessary, at the very least, restarting a service or restarting a driver or process is all that is required and the NT architecture is designed to do things like that.
If WindowsXP can flip between several Video Cards and drivers on the fly without restarting, installing an updated DLL is not something that should require a restart either.
Windows loves to turn on everything, whether you need it or not -- Linux takes the opposite approach.
This was so true prior to Windows 2003 Server. Microsoft wanted to please the users with features so much they dropped everything in and turned it all on.
Windows 2003 installs by default with no extra services, no IIS installed, and even IE itself is restricted. A very vanilla installation, you have to either script in additional features, or turn them on in the server configuration wizard.
Microsoft has/is learning their lesson. It is great to have all the features, but allowing people to turn them on when needed is a key area of debate that they didn't get, especially in the server market.
On the desktop they are also learning, WindowsXP will start having the Firewall turned on, and they are even getting ready to release an outbound Application Layer Filter for WindowsXP. Effectively killing worms and Trojan software from allowing anything in or letting anything out that is not either user or system approved.
Microsoft has rightfully taken a bunch of lumps for problems they allowed to happen or created, but they are starting to kick over to seeing this and admitting they were foolish, which as they say, is always the first step in recovery.
Thanks for the post; I enjoyed reading your views.
What sweet deal was this? Are you talking about the one where Microsoft would make browsers for Windows exclusively, and Netscape would make browsers for everything except Windows? Thereby giving MS an automatic 90% marketshare, which was what Netscape currently had in the Windows world?
People forget that Microsoft tried to negotiate with Netscape so that Microsoft could integrate a HTML rendering engine in Windows. And they thought Netscape had the best rendering technology at the time and wanted to use theirs.
They saw it as the next step in OS evolution; just like an OS could render Bitmaps, Text, and RTF, they also assumed that HTML was the next step in providing a basic componet of what an OS could provide to for developers and effectively end users would benefit.
Microsoft wanted Windows to be able to have API/components built-in that allowed developers to display HTML natively without the need of a browser interface. It was Netscape they originally wanted to license the rendering engine from. When that fell through, they moved on to purchase Mosaic, and turned it into the HTML engine that is the back end of IE, which was Microsoft's second choice.
And the funny part of the deal, Netscape would have been the browser that was installed by Microsoft on every PC that would also be using the Netscape developed HTML rendering engine for everything in Windows.
Netscape missed the boat by not seeing a bigger picture than just browsers. It wasn't until IE's success in using Windows' component based HTML engine in applications like AOL, and other products that pushed AOL and their Mozilla group to decide to create a HTML engine first and worry about a browser second, just like Microsoft did several years before them with the IE HTML engine built into Windows.
Never has Microsoft released a disk defragmenter of their own. Why not, if it's such a simple task to write one? If Microsoft designed the API's for defragmenting, how did DiskKeeper have a program already written to use those API's before Win2K was released? Your story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.....
Microsoft MADE NTFS, and DESIGNED EVERY PIECE OF HOW IT WORKS. Do you honestly think they needed Diskkeeper to tell them how to defragment their own FILE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY?
Random example used to assert validity in your argument
What do you want the URLs that were compromised or the name of our competitor that lost several clients because of their inability to keep up on current security?
You know I can't disclose this type of information.
However, check the newsgroups about a few hosting providers having their clients sites taken out in the past week and a half, and you will find some of the companies yourself.
There's a lot of truth to this. But it misses the point that, if you try, it's much easier to make Unix/Linux systems relatively secure, whereas it's an uphill battle with Windoze. Until recently, Microsoft gave the appearance that they didn't even care very much how secure their software was, regardless of whether the customer cared or not.
I'm actually sorry, but I have to disagree with this.
Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone. (This also applies for Desktops with Windows2k and WindowsXP)
Because of the various components distributed with Linux, there are a mass of patches to not only initially install, but there are also many services to turn on/off if used as a server with most default variant installations. Linux is not a consolidated solution, and this is not a strong point as you have many pieces with their own security issues you have to deal with.
If you are talking about securing Windows98 or Win9x, then I agree with you completely. But don't put the DOS/Win3.x/Win9x into the 'Windows' level of insecurity - there are entirely different products. This is the year 2003, everything before the NT code base is effectively a dead OS, just like Linux of 1998 and its flaws are dead.
The NT code base, especially since Win2k is very secure, even though Microsoft was foolish in the past to leave Windows specific ports open for intranet communications.
NT was designed with security as the forefront of the base OS architecture; hence the Object/Token based security system in the NT kernel itself.
But even with all the security Microsoft is throwing at it OS products, it will be a long time before there are no patches or flaws found.
The good news with all OSes is that Security is getting better, and will continue to get better.
Yep bought the basic functionality, MS made it into a working product and sold it for use to IBM.
nt: bought as vms
NT was NOT bought or EVER VMS - If you know anything about NT or VMS you would notice how STUPID this sounds. Just because one of Cutler's previous projects was VMS, it has nothing to do with his architectural and OS theories in NT. Cutler was also highly involved in other UNIXes of the time, so I suppose NT is now UNIX too.
powerpoint: bought
Not sure who was the original owner of Powerpoint. But, Microsoft has bought a lot of existing products and technologies. They even offered Netscape a sweet deal, and Netscape told them to go pound sand.
Often when MS finds good technologies instead of just making a product to squash it, they would rather reward the company that made it (making the small company rich) and then evolve on the companies ideas with the full force of the MS development and R&D department.
Want more examples? VB, FrontPage, and even the Defrag utility in Win2k and WindowsXP for NTFS was licensed from Diskkeeper.
Now think about the last one for just a minute. Microsoft created NTFS, they created the de-fragment APIs for NTFS, they created the processes for unlocking and locking in NTFS for de-fragmenting, and yet do you honestly think someone could argue that they were not capable of writing a simple program to defrag an NTFS partition?
You would have to be nuts to believe this.
As a developer, there are VERY few lines of code to make a defragmenter for NTFS, and yet Microsoft rewarded Diskkeepers work instead of just creating their own defragmenter.
Look at a third party free tool called Contig.exe, it is a tiny program that will de-fragment any NTFS volume and was easily written using STANDARD APIs designed by Microsoft in a few lines of code.
So instead of putting Diskkeeper out of the business, MS licensed their product and allowed users to buy up to a fuller featured version from Diskkeeper. Rewarding Diskkeepr instead of just creating MS's own product to crush Diskkeepr.
excel: bought
Ok, this one I really don't know, Excel was bought from whom?
windows ui: liberally, uh, borrowed from apple
Just like Apple , uh, borrowed it form Xerox.
MS Windows was in development in 1982/1983, at the SAME time Apple was starting their GUI development. However the Intel x86 architecture at the time couldn't do what the Motorola 68K CPUs could, Mac had the release and performance advantage.
BTW, consider everyone thinks that either Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, or MS stole the GUI from Apple, who did the XWindows group steal the GUI networking protocol from?
Xerox never fully locked their GUI developments of mouse and Graphical Interface completely, nor did they give it to Apple. If they had, they there would not have been a lawsuit from Xerox against Apple for using their technology - which there was.
word: it's a word processor for chrissake! that's innovative?
Several concepts from Word are a part of every aspect of ANY OS you are using today. From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it, changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking. The whole WYSIWYG UI of select and modify were introduced in Word. So next time you select a word with your mouse or keyboard and delete it, copy it, or change its font, say thanks to the MS Word developers.:)
ms bob: 100% microsoft's idea
Something that came out of the R&D division before people were ready for it, or the software and hardware could do what they envisioned.
This one I agree on, it sucked, but the Dog entertained old people and kids.:)
NT was the ugly stepsister to OS/2 - both OS/2 and NT originally had the same codebase and where a MS-IBM joint project. NT was the fork MS ran with after they left IBM out in the cold.
The OS/2 code base was abandoned completely, it IS NOT AT THE ROOTS OF NT, nor does it SHARE CODE WITH NT.
Point #1... Because of the contracts with IBM and Microsoft, if NT HAD ANY ORIGINAL OS/2 code in it, IBM would have full access and partial ownership to the product.
Because of this condition, NT's source was given to IBM for review as per contract to ensure that it did not have any OS/2 code. IBM even admitted that NT was clean of OS/2 source.
Point #2... Microsoft specifically set out to write a new OS, not just one based on old technologies, but one based on the best OS theories at the time. A Client/Server Kernel, Token Security, Layered Subsystems, etc. OS/2's kernel or basic design could never do any of this, and STILL cannot.
Point #3... OS/2 was a 16 OS when Microsoft wanted to move it to 32bit. IBM panicked because they had just dropped a huge contract with GM for PS/2 286 systems with a new OS/2 release guarantee.
Microsoft did not drop IBM, IBM would not let Microsoft make OS/2 a full 32bit OS, they wanted an evolution from the 16bit OS/2 base. This is also why if you look at IBM OS/2 32bit version that was released, it still had a LOT of 16bit code and even a single que messaging system as the older 16bit OS/2 did. Even Warp was still using 16bit drivers for key portions of the OS.
IBM did take Microsoft's UI designs for the next generation OS, hence the Object Desktop concepts in OS/2 that were actually designed in Microsoft labs.
And going back to your point of Microsoft leaving IBM in the cold. I remember seeing the letters and legal documents from the late 80's early 90's between Microsoft and IBM that were public domain.
Microsoft literally begged IBM to let them extend OS/2 to a new OS that was full 32bit and broke away from the OS/2 flaws.
IBM refused because of the PS/2 286 hardware sales they had during that period. IBM was too focused on the hardware they already sold rather than moving to a new OS model and even their new 386 PS/2 systems.
So don't give me the poor IBM story, it is a fairy tale.
Microsoft actually got screwed because of their bindings with IBM, they were forced to give IBM full access to use the Win 3.0 and Win 3.1 OS and access its source so that IBM was able to include a full Win 3.x compatibility layer inside OS/2. And yes it was a compatibility layer, not a layered subsystem as was in NT.
I'm not sure if that everyone here are really just newbies and weren't around when all this was happening, or if they are just so old they have forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
XP just reboots instead of showing you the error.
Maybe you have never seen it, but I can assure you from hardware fail testing that XP has the same BSOD.
Our officers have mandated that because of our business relationship with HP
Nothing against HP per se, but I feel for you.
There is nothing dumber than limiting vendor resources, especially from management that have no clue about technology.
Windows may take a mere 30 seconds to boot, but if you're dealing with a large raid array, you can often wait 5 minutes or more while the array goes through it's self check upon booting.
That is when you choose a better array controller the next time.
But kidding aside, your point is valid.
However if uptime is that essential in the environment you describe with the necessity of massive array, I would suggest implementing a cluster to offset the load in addition to being able to patch systems without taking the server offline.
Here are references for the truth behind the NT and OS/2 origins, and how they DID share a common codebase. Note that one of these showed me something I did not know: OS/2 ver 1 was 16 bit, but in 89 was being rewritten fully 32-bit. this was Before the split with MS, which took place in 90, at which time, ver 3.0 was on its way to completion, designed as a network server, it was 32-bit. It was this version MS forked and renamed NT. I'm only listing the majorly relevant links, and unfortunatly, the interview linked to by the slashdot story is now gone, though you can find the text if you dig a little.
e ID/13464/1 3464.htmlr y.html2 09.shtml
Enjoy.
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Articl
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Histo
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/25/124
Even as your own links clearly reference, OS/2 1.x and the 32bit OS/2 2.0 that was released in 1992 were DIFFERENT OS designs than OS/3 (OS/2 V3), which is where NT came from.
NT was a redesigned OS using a microkernel architecture that was developed BY Microsoft outside of the IBM partnership.
The OS/2 1.x and OS/2 2.0 projects were the joint projects between Microsoft and IBM.
OS/3, OS/2 V3, NT was a completely new OS design having no previous architectural commonalities with any other OS - especially OS/2 or DOS. From the unique modified kernel and the HAL layer, to using a portable code design and running on everything from Alpha to MIPS and x86.
Everyone knows where NT came from and was called OS/3 even on an early Alpha set of Disks I have, but ITS CODE did NOT come from the OS/2 project between IBM and Microsoft.
Read your own damn articles...
Ok, let me go through this with you VERY SLOWLY. :)
#1 - in correct. I have MCSE manuals here next to me for NT4. OS/2 compatability is there, the roots of the OS/2 compatibility came from the OS/2 project. this is a microsoft press book.
OS/2 Code is used in the OS/2 subsystem. But if you understood NT architecture, you would also understand that NT has the ability to layer subsystems of OSes, just like it does Win32, Win16 on Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. So even in the Win16 subsystem, it is actually running pieces of Windows 3.1 code, but that DOES NOT MEAN it is based on Windows 3.1 or Win16 just because it provides a subsystem to run these applications.
Just as in the POSIX subsystem and even the Win32 subsystem, these are layers ON TOP of the NT Kernel Layer.
For god's sake, even do a simple architectural search on the net about NT and see how it works and has no architectural similarities to OS/2.
And to further this point, the OS/2 subsystem was ripped out of Windows XP. Hence, no longer having any OS/2 support for running applications. If it was DEPENDANT or based on OS/2, don't you think WindowsXP might not be able to boot up once the OS/2 subsystem was removed?
Geesh.
#2) See above, and, I think you know a lot less about OS/2 then you think you do... OS/2 warp server has just about all the features you just mentioned. #3) OS/2 was and is 32-bit. Go look it up. As an expansion on this, why don't you go look up how OS/2 ran 16-bit windows 3.x applications - it ran it via an isolated virtual dos machine process that ran true dos and windows. this is the same system that MS used in NT to run 16-bit application, they called it Windows on Windows. This, by the way, contradicts your assertion that what OS/2 had was a compatability layer - it was a full virtual machine subsystem, exactly as the one MS had in NT. In fact, a version of OS/2 was released that was cheaper than the full version - but required you to have a copy of window 3.0 for compatability - because by not including the actual windows files with OS/2, IBM didn't have to pay MS for a windows liscense. As for it being a 'poor IBM story' - how did you get that from my post? I called NT the ugly stepsister of OS/2, I was refering directly to its lineage, not making a reference to a fairy tale or implying that OS/2 was better. Get a brain. go read some books.
Ok, where do we even begin here...
OS/2 was a 32bit OS, however in the 2.0 release in 1992 many of its device drivers were 16bit OS/2 code, not full 32bit. This carried over even to the latest OS/2 releases like Warp, where 16bit DRIVER code was still used.
It was a kludge - just like Win95 was a 16/32bit kludge.
OS/2 even had a single input cue for ALL applications. Talk about a responsive UI for a pre-emptive multitasking OS. The tagline on the box should have warned, "Sure it can multi-task, but you might have to wait 2 minutes before the previous application releases the input cue so you can click on another application or type in another window." Geesh - Even Windows95 had a multiple input cue. Again I submit to you OS/2 and NT are NOTHING alike architecturally.
Maybe you should do a bit more reading, or at least a web search, the information is OUT THERE.
As for the OS/2 Windows 3.x compatibility, there is a difference between virtualization/emulation and a layered subsystem. I suggest you do a bit of reading again. OS/2 was able to run Windows 3.x primarily through emulation and virtualization. It was not an OS subsystem.
Could you also buy a true UNIX subsystem for OS/2?(not an emulator, but natively compiled UNIX code that ran on OS/2) Could you buy a Win32 subsystem for OS/2?
No.
Now ask yourself why? Because the OS/2 architecture was never designed to do things like this. NT was designed from the ground up so that it was NOT dependant on any OS subsystem.
Microsoft could use a freaking UNIX subsystem on top of the NT k
Yes. I am singlehandedly responsible for the acronym "BSOD". And I'm sure that public knowledge of the latest round of Microsoft mega-viruses is soley due to my inability to get a USB printer working
And you missed the Linux security holes, and the Mac Updates in the past month while installing that printer as well.
You must have also missed Windows2k and WindowsXP, where the BSOD of has become virtually extinct.
Just keep your mind as closed as tight as possible, make sure nothing gets in that might change your Anti-Microsoft reality.
I think Microsoft sucks half the time, but I also see a lot of good things they have brought to the industry.
EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
Ok, found it. 127.0.0.1. Hack all you want :)
:)
Wow, you have the most popular IP address in the world, you must be famous... lol
What makes you think that every Windows computer will have more than one network adapter? Do you even know what you are talking about?
What in my comments suggest that I think everyone has more than one Network Adapater?
What are you not getting?
TURN NETBIOS OFF ON THE CONNECTION YOU ARE USING FOR YOUR YOUR INTERNET, WHETHER IT BE A NETWORK CARD OR MODEM.
If you are on a LAN BEHIND A NAT ROUTER OR FIREWALL, THEN YOU HAVE NO NEED TO TURN NETBIOS OFF.
DO YOU GET IT YET?
Geesh...
That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.
Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...
Translation: I'm employed by Microsoft and I can't admit that you've bested me.
Sorry, no affiliation. Now you only get two more guesses, make them good.
How can I respond to someone that thinks Windows is crap and evil. I won't convince you based on my knowledge or experience or independent facts, no matter how many times I type them.
You hate Windows, buy the t-shirt and just be happy with what you believe.
I know Windows(NT) is not as bad as what you believe and is on par with any OS out there. I have been in OS architecture and theory for far too long, have way too much experience in testing and development and have too many clients that entrust their entire infrastructures to my techs and my company.
But I'm sure your installation of Windows95 four years ago or botched Win2k installation is the definitive proof that Windows sucks and I can't compete with that.
Okay, stick with me here... The Mac OS GUI was out before Windows, right? Back in 1984, you could use a Mac with a mouse, and you could use Windows with... nothing - it wasn't invented yet. You had DOS and a keyboard, right?
......
Ok, you keep up this time...
May 1983, Microsoft introduces the MS Mouse, a two button mouse for repositioning the cursor on screen and selecting items.
Sept 1983, Microsoft Word was released; it was the first Word Processor to feature WYSIWYG, although at the time it was basically font styles on screen. But none the less, was revolutionary for the time and accredited with being the first commercial WYSIWYG Word Processor. - Source PC Magazine
Nov 1983, Microsoft announces and demonstrates Windows, a graphical environment designed to run on top of MSDOS. Due to fighting with IBM, the Top Down release, and hardware constraints of the ill powered x86 Intel processors, Windows 1.0 was not released until 1985, shortly after the release of Apple's Macintosh. Even though both companies had been demonstrating similar GUI concepts far before either product was manufactured.
Jan 1984, the Apple Macintosh was introduced with simultaneous releases of Microsoft BASIC for the Macintosh and Multiplan for the Macintosh.
Release of MS Word, Chart and File for the Macintosh came soon after the Macintosh introduction.
The MS Word concepts of select and modify were able to be fully extended with the Graphical Interface of the Macintosh, hence the introduction of select and modify WYSIWYG font and word processing formatting features. The MS Word Team of the time had further plans, such as real-time underline spellchecking, and text drag and drop within the document, but hardware performance at the time made this impossible to bring to fruition even with the faster 68k Mac CPU. - Source the MS Word Team Leader, Interview 1996
Early 1984, early realizing the closed architecture of the Macintosh System, Microsoft introduced "MacEnhancer" which provided the ability to plug non-Apple printers, modems and other devices into the Mac. This product did not take off, but prompted Apple to later adopt their own version of the product for non-Apple hardware connectivity.
Microsoft original championed the Apple Macintosh in 1984, and even Bill Gates appeared in original Macintosh brochure. (A collector's item for real Mac and Gates nerds)
Late 1985 - Early 1986, both Windows 1.0 and the Apple Macintosh were failing commercially. PC Zealots used the WIMP acronym to define GUI interfaces and the viability of a the benefits of a Graphical UI were being seriously doubted by both consumers and the computer press as being truly productive Interface approaches.
The introduction of Microsoft Excel for the Macintosh revived the Apple movement by demonstrating advantages of a graphical UI in a business setting.
Now if you would like to explain to me again how MacWrite was the first Word Processor to introduce the concept of select and modify, I will eat your hat, as the Macintosh was not even available when MS Word for DOS was released that did offer this ability.
As for there only being DOS and a keyboard for MS-DOS, you must of missed the whole MS Mouse thing from 1983.
The other thing you are missing is that the development of the Apple Macintosh and Windows 1.0 were virtually parallel in the CUI and design concepts at the time.
Microsoft was constrained not only by the crap IBM was pulling with Top Down, but also the fact the IBM PC of 1984 was not even close to the power of the 68K Motorola Apple used.
If there were no hardware performance constraints, MS Windows 1.0 would have actually been released before or at the same time as the Macintosh.
I'm sure you had an original Mac like the rest of us, but memory does sometimes fail even the best of us.
Microsoft was a strong partner of the Macintosh, and the Excel and Word products were two of the most important busi
That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.
In your reality, I imagine it would.
Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...
You could do these types of things in the DOS version of Word Perfect.. long before MS Word.
You forget that MS Word was released on the Mac long before the 5.x version of WordPerfect you are referencing.
Don't believe my facts, go look them up for yourself, the information is out there.
Look at my Windows(r) box ! It has been turned off for the last 2 years, and never got hacked/wormed/remote exploited/root kited/etc. during this period, even without all those patches/service pack !
:)
What a great OS !
You know if you have your electricity turned off you then don't have to worry about power spikes or blackouts then either.
"...turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet Connection..."
What good is a Windows server if it doesn't use Netbios over TCP/IP? I know I don't want any of my Windows boxes using any other protocol than TCP/IP, so how exactly will they communicate with each other? How will Active Directory work? That solution only works for a single standalone DESKTOP, not SERVER
Um, nope, and again nope...
Besides, notice the key words "for the Internet Connection".
Why would you have NetBIOS enabled on your network adapter that is connected to the Internet? Are you planning on sharing your Windows printer with 1,000,000 other people in the world?
wasn't Matrix rendered by Linux? Even Balmer&Gates are using Linux now?
:)
Our reality is the Matrix running on Linux 5.2.4, we just haven't found Neo or the pills to get out yet.
Ballmer and Gates are not human; they were created by SkyNet 1.6.3, which is also running on Linux.
*Posting Environment Directive* - Cue T2 music followed by the sound of a cracking skull under a penguin's foot.
Let's decrypt your logic 101 knowledge you are trying to use.
:)
Proprietary software is theoretically inferior to open source software with regards to technical correctness, which includes security.
Gorillas are theoretically more attractive than your mother.
Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't even try to counter the theory.
However you seem to have missed the score of interviews where Steve Ballmer can't say enough to counter this theory.
Microsoft is a PR/law firm that happens to sell software.
However, Microsoft's legal team was quite small prior to the first anti-competitive investigations started by Orin Hatch (from the state of Novell and WordPerfect) in the early 90's.
Most analysts were shocked to find that Microsoft was under represented not only legally, but out of the major software companies in the early 90's, they were one of the few that didn't have congressional lobbyists.
Additionally, they had one of the smallest marketing and PR departments of any major software vendor, especially when compared vendors like IBM, WordPerfect, and Lotus in the early 90's.
Hmm... And this was at a time when they were virtually taking over the market in OSes and Office Productivity software.
So if they are only a PR/law firm, I would like to hire the same small group of lawyers and PR people they were using in the early 90's that drove their sales and stock prices through the roof.
- Next time take the blue pill...
That's hilarious. I'm more secure on 98 than XP. No PnP to get hacked, no Windows Messenger Service Spam, no extra services exposed to the internet.
:)
Oh really, what's your Windows 98 system's IP? Maybe we should test your theory.
There are anecdotes in favor of either system but the simple fact is there is no security-critical Windows machine with an uptime of more than a couple of months, since service packs invariably require a reboot. I think that ought to tell us something.
We have clients with closed systems that have run for over 600 days on NT4 servers back in 1997/1998.
However, rebooting is not a good thing for service packs and updates, I agree completely.
But it doesn't mean the OS is inherently unstable or insecure, it just means that a 30 second downtime has to be scheduled for the update.
It would be a bigger argument if the Updates required the system to be down for hours, or Windows took longer than 30secs to fully boot.
And yes, before I get flamed from the crowd, 30 seconds is pretty average on today's hardware, even Windows Servers with every feature/service imaginable turned on still boot in under 45secs on our Pentium II 400mhz systems running 256MB of RAM.
But again, I completely agree that Microsoft needs to stop the 'Please Click to Reboot' crap for updates. With the NT architecture, there are so few times this is really necessary, at the very least, restarting a service or restarting a driver or process is all that is required and the NT architecture is designed to do things like that.
If WindowsXP can flip between several Video Cards and drivers on the fly without restarting, installing an updated DLL is not something that should require a restart either.
Windows loves to turn on everything, whether you need it or not -- Linux takes the opposite approach.
This was so true prior to Windows 2003 Server. Microsoft wanted to please the users with features so much they dropped everything in and turned it all on.
Windows 2003 installs by default with no extra services, no IIS installed, and even IE itself is restricted. A very vanilla installation, you have to either script in additional features, or turn them on in the server configuration wizard.
Microsoft has/is learning their lesson. It is great to have all the features, but allowing people to turn them on when needed is a key area of debate that they didn't get, especially in the server market.
On the desktop they are also learning, WindowsXP will start having the Firewall turned on, and they are even getting ready to release an outbound Application Layer Filter for WindowsXP. Effectively killing worms and Trojan software from allowing anything in or letting anything out that is not either user or system approved.
Microsoft has rightfully taken a bunch of lumps for problems they allowed to happen or created, but they are starting to kick over to seeing this and admitting they were foolish, which as they say, is always the first step in recovery.
Thanks for the post; I enjoyed reading your views.
What sweet deal was this? Are you talking about the one where Microsoft would make browsers for Windows exclusively, and Netscape would make browsers for everything except Windows? Thereby giving MS an automatic 90% marketshare, which was what Netscape currently had in the Windows world?
People forget that Microsoft tried to negotiate with Netscape so that Microsoft could integrate a HTML rendering engine in Windows. And they thought Netscape had the best rendering technology at the time and wanted to use theirs.
They saw it as the next step in OS evolution; just like an OS could render Bitmaps, Text, and RTF, they also assumed that HTML was the next step in providing a basic componet of what an OS could provide to for developers and effectively end users would benefit.
Microsoft wanted Windows to be able to have API/components built-in that allowed developers to display HTML natively without the need of a browser interface. It was Netscape they originally wanted to license the rendering engine from. When that fell through, they moved on to purchase Mosaic, and turned it into the HTML engine that is the back end of IE, which was Microsoft's second choice.
And the funny part of the deal, Netscape would have been the browser that was installed by Microsoft on every PC that would also be using the Netscape developed HTML rendering engine for everything in Windows.
Netscape missed the boat by not seeing a bigger picture than just browsers. It wasn't until IE's success in using Windows' component based HTML engine in applications like AOL, and other products that pushed AOL and their Mozilla group to decide to create a HTML engine first and worry about a browser second, just like Microsoft did several years before them with the IE HTML engine built into Windows.
Never has Microsoft released a disk defragmenter of their own. Why not, if it's such a simple task to write one?
If Microsoft designed the API's for defragmenting, how did DiskKeeper have a program already written to use those API's before Win2K was released? Your story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.....
Microsoft MADE NTFS, and DESIGNED EVERY PIECE OF HOW IT WORKS. Do you honestly think they needed Diskkeeper to tell them how to defragment their own FILE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY?
Give me a break, this is just silly.
"The whole thing started when Microsoft produced a ROM-based BASIC language."
you keepo using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
the work your looking for is 'Copied' not 'Produced'.
I am pretty sure everyone knows that Bill did write a version of Basic and didn't copy it.
Maybe you are just confused with them buying the pieces of MS-DOS, turning it into a usuable product and selling it to IBM.
Random example used to assert validity in your argument
What do you want the URLs that were compromised or the name of our competitor that lost several clients because of their inability to keep up on current security?
You know I can't disclose this type of information.
However, check the newsgroups about a few hosting providers having their clients sites taken out in the past week and a half, and you will find some of the companies yourself.
There's a lot of truth to this. But it misses the point that, if you try, it's much easier to make Unix/Linux systems relatively secure, whereas it's an uphill battle with Windoze. Until recently, Microsoft gave the appearance that they didn't even care very much how secure their software was, regardless of whether the customer cared or not.
I'm actually sorry, but I have to disagree with this.
Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone. (This also applies for Desktops with Windows2k and WindowsXP)
Because of the various components distributed with Linux, there are a mass of patches to not only initially install, but there are also many services to turn on/off if used as a server with most default variant installations. Linux is not a consolidated solution, and this is not a strong point as you have many pieces with their own security issues you have to deal with.
If you are talking about securing Windows98 or Win9x, then I agree with you completely. But don't put the DOS/Win3.x/Win9x into the 'Windows' level of insecurity - there are entirely different products. This is the year 2003, everything before the NT code base is effectively a dead OS, just like Linux of 1998 and its flaws are dead.
The NT code base, especially since Win2k is very secure, even though Microsoft was foolish in the past to leave Windows specific ports open for intranet communications.
NT was designed with security as the forefront of the base OS architecture; hence the Object/Token based security system in the NT kernel itself.
But even with all the security Microsoft is throwing at it OS products, it will be a long time before there are no patches or flaws found.
The good news with all OSes is that Security is getting better, and will continue to get better.
dos: bought
:)
:)
Yep bought the basic functionality, MS made it into a working product and sold it for use to IBM.
nt: bought as vms
NT was NOT bought or EVER VMS - If you know anything about NT or VMS you would notice how STUPID this sounds. Just because one of Cutler's previous projects was VMS, it has nothing to do with his architectural and OS theories in NT. Cutler was also highly involved in other UNIXes of the time, so I suppose NT is now UNIX too.
powerpoint: bought
Not sure who was the original owner of Powerpoint. But, Microsoft has bought a lot of existing products and technologies. They even offered Netscape a sweet deal, and Netscape told them to go pound sand.
Often when MS finds good technologies instead of just making a product to squash it, they would rather reward the company that made it (making the small company rich) and then evolve on the companies ideas with the full force of the MS development and R&D department.
Want more examples? VB, FrontPage, and even the Defrag utility in Win2k and WindowsXP for NTFS was licensed from Diskkeeper.
Now think about the last one for just a minute. Microsoft created NTFS, they created the de-fragment APIs for NTFS, they created the processes for unlocking and locking in NTFS for de-fragmenting, and yet do you honestly think someone could argue that they were not capable of writing a simple program to defrag an NTFS partition?
You would have to be nuts to believe this.
As a developer, there are VERY few lines of code to make a defragmenter for NTFS, and yet Microsoft rewarded Diskkeepers work instead of just creating their own defragmenter.
Look at a third party free tool called Contig.exe, it is a tiny program that will de-fragment any NTFS volume and was easily written using STANDARD APIs designed by Microsoft in a few lines of code.
So instead of putting Diskkeeper out of the business, MS licensed their product and allowed users to buy up to a fuller featured version from Diskkeeper. Rewarding Diskkeepr instead of just creating MS's own product to crush Diskkeepr.
excel: bought
Ok, this one I really don't know, Excel was bought from whom?
windows ui: liberally, uh, borrowed from apple
Just like Apple , uh, borrowed it form Xerox.
MS Windows was in development in 1982/1983, at the SAME time Apple was starting their GUI development. However the Intel x86 architecture at the time couldn't do what the Motorola 68K CPUs could, Mac had the release and performance advantage.
BTW, consider everyone thinks that either Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, or MS stole the GUI from Apple, who did the XWindows group steal the GUI networking protocol from?
Xerox never fully locked their GUI developments of mouse and Graphical Interface completely, nor did they give it to Apple. If they had, they there would not have been a lawsuit from Xerox against Apple for using their technology - which there was.
word: it's a word processor for chrissake! that's innovative?
Several concepts from Word are a part of every aspect of ANY OS you are using today. From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it, changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking. The whole WYSIWYG UI of select and modify were introduced in Word. So next time you select a word with your mouse or keyboard and delete it, copy it, or change its font, say thanks to the MS Word developers.
ms bob: 100% microsoft's idea
Something that came out of the R&D division before people were ready for it, or the software and hardware could do what they envisioned.
This one I agree on, it sucked, but the Dog entertained old people and kids.
NT was the ugly stepsister to OS/2 - both OS/2 and NT originally had the same codebase and where a MS-IBM joint project. NT was the fork MS ran with after they left IBM out in the cold.
The OS/2 code base was abandoned completely, it IS NOT AT THE ROOTS OF NT, nor does it SHARE CODE WITH NT.
Point #1...
Because of the contracts with IBM and Microsoft, if NT HAD ANY ORIGINAL OS/2 code in it, IBM would have full access and partial ownership to the product.
Because of this condition, NT's source was given to IBM for review as per contract to ensure that it did not have any OS/2 code. IBM even admitted that NT was clean of OS/2 source.
Point #2...
Microsoft specifically set out to write a new OS, not just one based on old technologies, but one based on the best OS theories at the time. A Client/Server Kernel, Token Security, Layered Subsystems, etc. OS/2's kernel or basic design could never do any of this, and STILL cannot.
Point #3...
OS/2 was a 16 OS when Microsoft wanted to move it to 32bit. IBM panicked because they had just dropped a huge contract with GM for PS/2 286 systems with a new OS/2 release guarantee.
Microsoft did not drop IBM, IBM would not let Microsoft make OS/2 a full 32bit OS, they wanted an evolution from the 16bit OS/2 base. This is also why if you look at IBM OS/2 32bit version that was released, it still had a LOT of 16bit code and even a single que messaging system as the older 16bit OS/2 did. Even Warp was still using 16bit drivers for key portions of the OS.
IBM did take Microsoft's UI designs for the next generation OS, hence the Object Desktop concepts in OS/2 that were actually designed in Microsoft labs.
And going back to your point of Microsoft leaving IBM in the cold. I remember seeing the letters and legal documents from the late 80's early 90's between Microsoft and IBM that were public domain.
Microsoft literally begged IBM to let them extend OS/2 to a new OS that was full 32bit and broke away from the OS/2 flaws.
IBM refused because of the PS/2 286 hardware sales they had during that period. IBM was too focused on the hardware they already sold rather than moving to a new OS model and even their new 386 PS/2 systems.
So don't give me the poor IBM story, it is a fairy tale.
Microsoft actually got screwed because of their bindings with IBM, they were forced to give IBM full access to use the Win 3.0 and Win 3.1 OS and access its source so that IBM was able to include a full Win 3.x compatibility layer inside OS/2. And yes it was a compatibility layer, not a layered subsystem as was in NT.
I'm not sure if that everyone here are really just newbies and weren't around when all this was happening, or if they are just so old they have forgotten.