Dave Angel於 2012年9月22日星期六UTC+8下午7時44分54秒寫道：
> On 09/22/2012 06:53 AM, Alister wrote:I tested MS NT in 1998-2002. I was pleased by the results to run real
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:47:57 -0400, Dave Angel wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> >> That's not true at all. You'd re thinking of Windows 3, Windows 95, 98,
> >> and ME, which were hacked on top of MSDOS. But Windows NT3.5, 4, 2000,
> >> XP, Vista and Windows 7 have an entirely different bloodline.
> >> NT 3.51 was actually very robust, but in 4.0 to gain better performance,
> >> they apparently did some compromising in the video driver's isolation.
> >> And who knows what's happened since then.
> > Although NT upwards has tried to introduce
> Your wording seems to imply that you still think NT was built on some
> earlier MS product. It was written from scratch by a team recruited
> mostly from outside MS, including the leader, a guy who was I think
> experienced in VMS development. The names escape me right now. But
> there were a couple of books, by Helen someone, I think, which helped us
> outsiders understand some of the philosophies of the development.
> > user-space requirements the
> > need to maintain backwards compatibility has compromised these efforts.
> > it is not helped by the end user's (just look at what happened to Vista's
> > attempt to make users authorise any changes to the system)
> I don't see any connection between memory address space user models and
> user security models.
multi-tasking processes at that time. I ran some linux machines
at that time, too.
Anyway the heap walker problems in all the unix and linux systems
My conclusion at that time was people from DEC were really good in the OS.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.