home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!gip200
- From: gip200@sci.kun.nl (gip2 course)
- Subject: Re: Mach vs. NT?
- Message-ID: <BzGAoL.1x4@sci.kun.nl>
- Sender: news@sci.kun.nl (News owner)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: blauw.sci.kun.nl
- Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
- References: <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com> <BzG3Gw.1s6@alsvid.une.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:33:56 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In <BzG3Gw.1s6@alsvid.une.edu.au> mark@alsvid.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett Internet: mark@arvak.une.edu.au Phone: +61 66 20 3859) writes:
-
- >From article <1992Dec12.000250.14799@microsoft.com>, by jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff Henshaw):
- >>
- >> In article <Bz2LFA.7qM@eis.calstate.edu>,
- >> cwilder@eis.calstate.edu (Charlotte Wilder) writes...
- >> |
- >> | 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
-
- > WindowsNT is based on the Mach3.0 micro kernel!!!!!!!!
-
- Any references?
-
- > 1. such a discussion is null and void since mach is not an
- > operating system, and WindowNT is!
-
- Mach is an operating system, but not a 'complete' OS. I.e. it doesn't do
- everything but only several things.
-
- > 2. even worse, mach is part of windowsNT
-
- Again, can you give any proof?
-
- > 1. Go and do some reading before hitting the keyboard with replies
-
- Read what?
-
-