From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Apr 7 14:39:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7800537B424 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:39:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903F618D28; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:39:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.11.3/8.9.3) id f37Lda287401; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:39:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:39:36 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Dale Chulhan - Home , "chat@FreeBSD.ORG" , My List , The Trinidad and Tobago Microsoft BackOffice Users Group Subject: Re: Win NT vs UNIX ( cross fire ) Message-ID: <20010407163936.B87371@hamlet.nectar.com> References: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from des@ofug.org on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 08:55:41PM +0200 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 08:55:41PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Dale Chulhan - Home writes: > > The following is part of some cross fire passing tru another news group: > > Any comments? > > Not much, except: > > > Dick, Windows NT was based on VMS not UNIX. In fact UNIX and Windows > > 2000/NT are very different. Windows uses a micro kernel > > architecture, UNIX uses a monolithic kernel. > > Unix does not use a monolithic kernel. Most Unix implementations do, > but there's no reason why you couldn't implement Unix on top of a > microkernel, and in fact, Apple have done just that with OS X. And just to add, Windows NT does not use a microkernel architecture, either. It is a hybrid, which is now more like a monolithic OS. It is a reasonable trade-off of performance and modularity, though ultimately most decisions were made in favor of performance. See _Inside NT_ by Helen Custer. Hmm, actually I see there is now a 2nd edition, named _Inside Windows NT_. > > Today, of all the > > mainstream Operating Systems, UNIX still has the slowest Windows > > interface. Actually, I find the X Windows interface quite a bit snappier than any version of Windows on the same hardware. Clearly, YMMV. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message