Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

itprotoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#81

Post by sytelus »

EamonnMR wrote: post #3

For a detailed account, there's always _Show Stopper!_ by G. Pascal Zachary which is a shot at writing a _Soul of the new Machine_ style book about Microsoft during the creation of NT. If that sort of story entertains you, I recommend it.

There two books that people rarely talk about so these are hidden gems:

* Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire

* Barbarians Led by Bill Gates

You really have to get past the title of second book. It's not really about bashing Microsoft or Gates but account of thirteen-year Microsoft veteran Marlin Eller that you perhaps never heard of. That makes this book all the more interesting and give real insight on how things were at lower levels in early days.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#83

Post by binomialxenon »

aap_ wrote: post #62
vt240 wrote: post #15

I'm still waiting for the x86-64 VMS port. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZN6LjuEgdw&t

I'm still wondering whether the amd64 port of OpenVMS will kill amd64 like it killed every other platform it ever ran on.

Hey, whatever it takes for us to get to RISC on the desktop.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#84

Post by binomialxenon »

WorldMaker wrote: post #36
EdSharkey wrote: post #33

I wonder how relevant the NT kernel is nowadays. My impression is the kernel as a foundation is that it is a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, the windows structures atop it are eternally collapsing and rotted in parts. With the introduction of the windows subsystem for linux, the whole edifice is coming down, threatening to bury the NT kernel and render it obsolete. It seems Microsoft has capitulated and competition h…

It seems just the opposite to me. The Windows Subsystem for Linux seems a testament to the NT Kernel and its deliberate approach from nearly three decades ago. Designed originally to support Win32, POSIX, and OS/2 frontends, for a long time it only ever really needed to exercise one of those things. Now it has the best POSIX layer it has ever had, focusing on byte-for-byte compatibility with binaries targeting the Li…

> ...and more processor architectures than most other kernels could dream of touching.

I don't think it comes close to BSD, Linux, or even QNX in that regard.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#86

Post by bediger4000 »

Around 1996/97 I heard two very similar rumors, from two people who did not know each other. Both rumors had it that the NT source at that time was at least in some part the source of "Micah", the OS that Dave Cutler and crew had been working on for the Prism architecture. The NT source still had DEC copyrights and mentions of Micah in it. That's why DEC had such a weird deal with Microsoft, and why there was an Alpha AXP port of NT long after all other architectures went by the wayside.

As far as credibility of this rumor, if you have a copy of "Inside the Windows NT file system" (https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Windows-NT-File-System/dp/1556...) by Helen Custer, you'll see a more than passing resemblance of NTFS to ODS-2, the on-disk layout of VMS filesystem. G. Pascal Zachary has a big chapter on the development of NTFS, if I recall "Showstopper!" correctly, but he doesn't mention this... coincidence at all, giving full credit for NTFS to a couple of guys on the NT team.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#87

Post by pjmlp »

bcoates wrote: post #35
EdSharkey wrote: post #33

I wonder how relevant the NT kernel is nowadays. My impression is the kernel as a foundation is that it is a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, the windows structures atop it are eternally collapsing and rotted in parts. With the introduction of the windows subsystem for linux, the whole edifice is coming down, threatening to bury the NT kernel and render it obsolete. It seems Microsoft has capitulated and competition h…

At the API and system service levels the reason for all that goofy cruft is that businesses still use it, a lot, and are willing to pay fairly big bucks if and only if they get to keep it. Adding Linux features is just more cruft added to the kludge. Sells more units, particularly in Azure, not particularly part of some sort of strategic direction then, say, the Distributed Transaction Coordinator. The UI and OS-leve…

Still, it is more organized as desktop stack than any UNIX based alternative, with exception of macOS, which doesn't care much about their UNIX underpinnings, even during NeXT days.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#88

Post by dblohm7 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #41
dblohm7 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we'll ever see Win32 retired. .NET and UWP aren't distinct subsystems; they run atop Win32.

Sure, there will always be legacy Win32 apps. I work with too many VB6 applications to be more optimistic about that. UWP is closer to being a distinct subsystem than "running atop Win32". Though it isn't an official subsystem, it has some of the hallmarks of one (and that was one of the complaints about Windows 8). They've been successfully blurring the lines between UWP and Win32 since Windows 8, but it's also not…

COM is dependent on Win32, and UWP is based on COM.

Re: Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (1998)

#89

Post by chungy »

qplex wrote: post #46
WorldMaker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems just the opposite to me. The Windows Subsystem for Linux seems a testament to the NT Kernel and its deliberate approach from nearly three decades ago. Designed originally to support Win32, POSIX, and OS/2 frontends, for a long time it only ever really needed to exercise one of those things. Now it has the best POSIX layer it has ever had, focusing on byte-for-byte compatibility with binaries targeting the Li…

>than most other kernels could dream of Except Linux.

NT pretty much only runs on x86 and ARM (yes, yes, 32- and 64-bit variants of both). yawn

Almost ever other OS out there allows for more. Linux, (Free|Open|Net)BSD, illumos, AROS... hell, even ReactOS has had ports to architectures Windows has never dreamed of :)

Post reply on HN