> > 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.

> --

> DaveA