home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jhenshaw
- From: jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff Henshaw)
- Subject: Re: Mach vs. NT?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com>
- Date: 12 Dec 92 00:02:50 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- Lines: 33
-
-
- In article <Bz2LFA.7qM@eis.calstate.edu>,
- cwilder@eis.calstate.edu (Charlotte Wilder) writes...
-
- | reissell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juhani Reissell) writes:
- | > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that Windows NT
- | > was at least loosely based on mach. The meaning of this is a bit vague
- | > to me, maybe it just means that NT is a microkernel based OS? I too
- | > would like some poijnters on this.
- |
- | I don't know if NT is "loosely" based on Mach, but I do know that NT will
- | be a microkernel based operating system.
-
- I think it would be safer to say that NT is "loosely based on
- Mach concepts" since some of the ideas (like a microkernel
- architecture) carry over. NT also has a variety of subsystems
- to deal with specific modes of operation. For example, Win32
- governs, while subsystems to handle Win16 (windows 3.x) apps,
- OS/2 1.x character-mode apps, and POSIX apps are handled by
- their respective subsystem.
-
- A book entitled _Inside_Windows_NT_ is available at bookstores
- and covers many of the NT concepts pretty well. Some may want
- to have a look at it.
-
-
- , |
- |/\
- ______/| eff__/| / enshaw______________________________
- |/ \/
- /| jhenshaw@microsoft.com
- \| not a microsoft spokesperson
-
-