Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > After taking out all the kernel level stuff for the GUI and other > performance enhancements that MS has made for the gamers and other > people, I would say that it is probably true that the NT kernel and the > BSD kernels are in the same order of magnitude of stability. Dave > Cutler and his crew from DEC did a good job with VMS and VAX/ELN and > RSX-11M and I would assume that they would do the same job in their > kernel design and implementation for M$.
They did. The kernel is excellently written. Microsoft threw a lot of that away in favor of the gamers you mention and of clueless Windows desktop users generally. The solid NT kernel is still there, but MS has drilled a great many large holes through it. > disclaimer: I have not seen the source to NT but I do know the > reputations of the implementors and designers of (at least the > original) NT kernel. I have seen the source to both NT and the Win 9x family, and the difference is like night and day. The former was clearly written by a lot of people with a lot of prior experience under their belts; the latter was clearly written by people who had never written much of anything before they started working on Windows. -- Anthony _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
