Attributes of NT as an OS?
thomas j.
couple of questions follow:
Is NT stand alone. In other words, do you need DOS as with 3.1?
Does NT actually control I/O and Memory Management?
Does NT have a Kernel, User and GDI, or other similar, What are they?
Thanks for any assistance you can render.
Tom
patrick...@msn.com
stand alone or in LAN/WAN networked enviroment. NT is completely different from dos/win 3.x.
NT does not require dos to boot like windows, Has support for 3 more File systems(in addition
to dos FAT, HPFS,CDFS,NTFS), It can run applications native to other OS's win16 apps(win3.x),
win32(NT & WIN95), OS/2 1.x, and Posix .1 in these subsystems. It is multitasking and
multithreaded and does all of its own memory management and File i/o through its filesystem
drivers. NT does have a kernel called the NTOSkrnl.exe which manages the processes on the
processor, there is also user.exe , and GDI.exe. All in all it a pretty good OS. Hope this
helps and if you need more info feel free to ask!
Pat
Peter Mayne
Thomas J. Dietrich wrote:
>
> Help, I'm doing a paper on operating systems and have not use NT before. A
> couple of questions follow:
>
> Is NT stand alone.
Yes.
> In other words, do you need DOS as with 3.1?
No.
> Does NT actually control I/O and Memory Management?
Yes.
> Does NT have a Kernel, User and GDI, or other similar,
Yes.
> What are they?
Kernel, User and GDI.
--
PJDM
Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia), Canberra, ACT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions, and have nothing to do with Digital.
I design Internet Service Providers. It's a job.
Martin Nisshagen
Thomas J. Dietrich wrote:
>
> Help, I'm doing a paper on operating systems and have not use NT before. A
> couple of questions follow:
>
> Does NT actually control I/O and Memory Management?
>
> Thanks for any assistance you can render.
I can recommend reading "Inside Windows NT" by Helen Custer, MS Press. It
gives a good overview of how NT works. Highly recommended for the info
that you seem to be needing for your work.
Best regards,
m a r t i n n
--
Martin Nisshagen mar...@mts.se (MIME 1.0) "verdi + callas =
MTS Technology, Sweden http://www.mts.se/martin 100% pleasure..."
Russ McClelland
> TomNT is a fully 32 bit OS that comes in two flavors, workstation and server and both can be used
>stand alone or in LAN/WAN networked enviroment. NT is completely different from dos/win 3.x.
> NT does not require dos to boot like windows, Has support for 3 more File systems(in addition
>to dos FAT, HPFS,CDFS,NTFS), It can run applications native to other OS's win16 apps(win3.x),
>win32(NT & WIN95), OS/2 1.x, and Posix .1 in these subsystems. It is multitasking and
>multithreaded and does all of its own memory management and File i/o through its filesystem
>drivers. NT does have a kernel called the NTOSkrnl.exe which manages the processes on the
>processor, there is also user.exe , and GDI.exe. All in all it a pretty good OS. Hope this
>helps and if you need more info feel free to ask!
> Pat
I don't know why you called it "TomNT" but I sure would like to hear
it.
It also runs OS/2 Presentation Manager apps (with an additional add in
from MS), and will soon allow execution of POSIX 2.0 apps.
They are also adding clustering technologies and a distributed object
communication layer (DCOM).
The IO subsystem using a unique transactioning database to make it
more secure from corruption than any FS available. If a transaction
fails, the next time NT boots, the transaction is rolled back as if it
never happened. The file is also scheduled to be upgraded to an
object file system next year.
Recommend Inside NT and Inside the NT File System, both by Helen
Custer.
Giles Morris
>It also runs OS/2 Presentation Manager apps (with an additional add in
>from MS), and will soon allow execution of POSIX 2.0 apps.
(I'm sure this was just a slip of the key, but) NT runs OS/2 1.x applications
in command line mode -- no PM. POSIX 2.0 is available now if you have Open/NT
from Softway.
Chad Teeple
In article <DqqEn...@Federal.Unisys.COM>
Mor...@federal.unisys.com (Giles Morris) wrote:
> In article <4m523k$b...@wormhole.objectspace.com>, rus...@computek.net (Russ McClelland) wrote:
>
>>It also runs OS/2 Presentation Manager apps (with an additional add in
>>from MS), and will soon allow execution of POSIX 2.0 apps.
>
> (I'm sure this was just a slip of the key, but) NT runs OS/2 1.x applications
Note the parenthetical comment. There is an MS add-on which does
allow PM apps to run (developed by their Israel division). I don't
know whether or not 2.x apps are supported.
Peter Mayne
Russ McClelland wrote:
> The IO subsystem using a unique transactioning database to make it
> more secure from corruption than any FS available. If a transaction
> fails, the next time NT boots, the transaction is rolled back as if it
> never happened.
Digital UNIX also uses a transaction-based filesystem (AdvFS) with rollback
and rollforward to make it more secure from corruption and obviating the need
for fsck/checkdisk/whatever you want to call it. HP-UX has JFS (Journal File
System), IRIX has XFS, and there's the VERITAS File System (VxFS, see
http://www.veritas.com/OLSM/whitepapers/fssum.html). Hardly unique.
RMS (the file system used by OpenVMS) I think uses atomic "transactions" to
achieve the same goal.
No doubt other operating systems (MVS and other high-enders that I know nothing
about) have reliability features built in as well. There's more than just FAT
and UFS to compare NTFS to.
Robin Hourahane
Peter Mayne wrote:
>
> Russ McClelland wrote:
> > The IO subsystem using a unique transactioning database to make it
> > more secure from corruption than any FS available. If a transaction
> > fails, the next time NT boots, the transaction is rolled back as if it
> > never happened.
>
>AIX also has a journaled file system; volume sets; software mirroring and
stripping.
I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
already have and in most cases they are done better.
Don't get me wrong NT is a good operating system but a long way from being the
cutting eadge technology the Microsoft would want people to think.
Robin
#include <std.disclaimer>
dave porter
In article <318871...@mtits.co.uk>
Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
> I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> already have and in most cases they are done better.
The integration of the cache manager, i/o manager, and virtual memory
subsystem?
Martin Nisshagen
Robin Hourahane wrote:
> I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> already have and in most cases they are done better.
I partly agree here as you can almost found any part in one OS who is
maybe avaible in some other OSes. I think it's the combinations of
different parts who makes an OS unique or not (not a single feature).
NT is a good combination in that it's as easy to use as normal wintel
machine but with the stability and security that some other OSes has.
> Don't get me wrong NT is a good operating system but a long way from being the
> cutting eadge technology the Microsoft would want people to think.
I agree it's doesn't have all features that I like in Unix (like build in
support for running multiple users with X), but in many areas it has more
"cutting edge" technology in the kernel that many much more expensive
Unices doesn't have (like a very clean client-server design in oposition
to most monolitic unix kernels, a easy to port architecture thanks to it's
harware abstraction layer, very object based degin of all kernel parts
for good maintaince and also giving it a ability to be certified for B2
type of security, many selfoptimised adjustments of OS parameters while
running, etc etc).
I say, don't make the misstake to think that MS and NT can't bring out
any new and good ideas just beacuse it lacks some features and concepts
that Unix has.
Best regards,
m a r t i n n - who likes to use Solaris, NT, FreeBSD and OS/2.
Peter Mayne
>
> > I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> > already have and in most cases they are done better.
>
> subsystem?
Digital UNIX has an integrated cache (Unified Buffer Cache) whereby VM and I/O
buffer give and take memory depending on system loading, similarly to Windows NT.
I'm not sure what your definition of "I/O manager" is.
Peter Mayne
Martin Nisshagen wrote:
> I agree it's doesn't have all features that I like in Unix (like build in
> support for running multiple users with X)
UNIX didn't have that either for a long time. It's not built-in to Windows NT,
but it's certainly possible.
> , but in many areas it has more
> "cutting edge" technology in the kernel that many much more expensive
> Unices doesn't have (like a very clean client-server design in oposition
> to most monolitic unix kernels,
I've seen postings here in the past about the lack of cleanliness. Not all
UNIXes are monolithic, either: remember the big microkernel fad of a few years
ago?
> a easy to port architecture thanks to it's
> harware abstraction layer,
UNIX seems to do fairly well when it comes to porting to different platforms,
with or without a HAL.
> very object based degin of all kernel parts
> for good maintaince and also giving it a ability to be certified for B2
> type of security,
I'll sell you a B2 rated UNIX right now if you want one, despite the fact that
it doesn't have an "object-oriented" kernel.
> many selfoptimised adjustments of OS parameters while
> running, etc etc).
Just like OpenVMS. 8-) Digital UNIX for one also does things like dynamic memory
adjustment to share VM with the file cache.
> I say, don't make the misstake to think that MS and NT can't bring out
> any new and good ideas just beacuse it lacks some features and concepts
> that Unix has.
Good, maybe, but not necessarily new. The newness is not in the individual
ideas, but in wrapping them all up into one place and putting them in an
acceptable desktop guise.
Frank Heyne
Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
>I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
>already have and in most cases they are done better.
How about this:
NT is the only operating system which uses 2 different character sets!
May be if you use an english version of it you will not encounter this problem,
but with German you will! So it is impossible to do the following easy task in NT
without getting flaws:
1. Run a command line utility which produces some output with umlauts.
2. Copy this output into the clipboard.
3. Insert it into some text written in Notepad.
Depending on the font you chose, the umlauts written in notepad or the umlauts written
from the command line util will be displayed and printed wrong!
So NT _is_ the most weird operating system!
Frank Heyne
Graeme Adamson
:> dave porter wrote:
:> >
:> > In article <318871...@mtits.co.uk>
:> > Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
:> >
:> > > I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
:> > > already have and in most cases they are done better.
:> >
Compatibility with Windows NT programs?
====================================================
Graeme Adamson, Claymore Systems
clay...@spl.co.za or gra...@spl.co.za
MCSE, CNA, LCE, INTJ
- di omnes amant fenestras XCV
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
====================================================
dave porter
In article <4mke34$n...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de>
f...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de (Frank Heyne) wrote:
> How about this:
> NT is the only operating system which uses 2 different character sets!
Depends on what you mean by "operating system" :-)
NT-the-system only uses one character set: UNICODE.
However, all that Win32 baggage allows you to use "ANSI" as well, for
compaibility with 8-bit-character programs. It also allows you to
use the so-called "OEM" character sets for compatibility with DOS nonsense.
And there's the doublebyte character set. And all of these come in numerous
local language variants. So your estimate of 2 char sets is very low.
> May be if you use an english version of it you will not encounter this problem,
> but with German you will! So it is impossible to do the following easy task in NT
> without getting flaws:
> 1. Run a command line utility which produces some output with umlauts.
> 2. Copy this output into the clipboard.
> 3. Insert it into some text written in Notepad.
>
As I'm sure you know, the situation was just as bad when everyone used
local-language variants of ASCII. The fix is possible with NT: get rid
of all the applications which don't use UNICODE.
Rob Elmer
In article <DqqEn...@Federal.Unisys.COM>, Mor...@federal.unisys.com (Giles Morris) wrote:
>In article <4m523k$b...@wormhole.objectspace.com>, rus...@computek.net (Russ
> McClelland) wrote:
>
>>It also runs OS/2 Presentation Manager apps (with an additional add in
>>from MS), and will soon allow execution of POSIX 2.0 apps.
>
>(I'm sure this was just a slip of the key, but) NT runs OS/2 1.x applications
>from Softway.
MS used to sell an addon that let you run PM 1.x programs. I don't know if
they still do.
Frank Heyne
por...@ultranet.com (dave porter) wrote:
>In article <4mke34$n...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de>
>f...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de (Frank Heyne) wrote:
>
>> How about this:
>> NT is the only operating system which uses 2 different character sets!
>
>Depends on what you mean by "operating system" :-)
>
>NT-the-system only uses one character set: UNICODE.
That would be really nice ;-)
>However, all that Win32 baggage allows you to use "ANSI" as well, for
>compaibility with 8-bit-character programs. It also allows you to
>use the so-called "OEM" character sets for compatibility with DOS nonsense.
>And there's the doublebyte character set. And all of these come in numerous
>local language variants. So your estimate of 2 char sets is very low.
I spoke only for the version I have running ;-)
BTW, how can I say the dir and cacls commands to use the same code?
>> May be if you use an english version of it you will not encounter this problem,
>> but with German you will! So it is impossible to do the following easy task in NT
>> without getting flaws:
>> 1. Run a command line utility which produces some output with umlauts.
>> 2. Copy this output into the clipboard.
>> 3. Insert it into some text written in Notepad.
>>
>
>As I'm sure you know, the situation was just as bad when everyone used
>local-language variants of ASCII. The fix is possible with NT: get rid
>of all the applications which don't use UNICODE.
This is impossible. I have this problem only using all the stuff delivered with NT!
User are allowed to use umlauts in file names. So:
1. Make a "dir" at the command line, insert the result via clipboard in the notepad,
2. Make a "cacls *.*" at the command line, insert the result via clipboard in the notepad,
3. and now you have a problem (if there are some file names with umlauts)!
What I mean is that NT itself (all you get with the CD) is so weird that some of it
uses ANSI and some OEM!
Frank Heyne
dave porter
In article <4mmme3$k...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de>
f...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de (Frank Heyne) wrote:
>>As I'm sure you know, the situation was just as bad when everyone used
>>local-language variants of ASCII. The fix is possible with NT: get rid
>>of all the applications which don't use UNICODE.
>
> This is impossible. I have this problem only using all the stuff delivered with NT!
> User are allowed to use umlauts in file names. So:
> 1. Make a "dir" at the command line, insert the result via clipboard in the notepad,
> 2. Make a "cacls *.*" at the command line, insert the result via clipboard in the notepad,
> 3. and now you have a problem (if there are some file names with umlauts)!
>
> What I mean is that NT itself (all you get with the CD) is so weird that some of it
> uses ANSI and some OEM!
>
Agreed. I didn't mean that it was within *your* power to fix the problem.
However it is possible for Microsoft. The operating system kernel
uses Unicode exclusively. Various other things which are on the NT CD,
but which are not strictly "the operating system" in my narrow view,
haven't quite caught up with the Unicode world.
Peter Mayne
Graeme Adamson wrote:
>
> :> dave porter wrote:
> :> >
> :> > In article <318871...@mtits.co.uk>
> :> > Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
> :> >
> :> > > I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> :> > > already have and in most cases they are done better.
> :> >
>
> Compatibility with Windows NT programs?
Already available on UNIX from Bristol Technologies and others.
Coming soon with OpenVMS, as a result of the Windows NT/OpenVMS Affinity
program.
Peter Mayne
Graeme Adamson wrote:
>
> :> dave porter wrote:
> :> >
> :> > In article <318871...@mtits.co.uk>
> :> > Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
> :> >
> :> > > I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> :> > > already have and in most cases they are done better.
> :> >
>
> Compatibility with Windows NT programs?
Already available on UNIX from Bristol and others.
Coming soon on OpenVMS with the Windows NT/OpenVMS Affinity program.
Peter Mayne
Graeme Adamson wrote:
>
> :> dave porter wrote:
> :> >
> :> > In article <318871...@mtits.co.uk>
> :> > Robin Hourahane <robin_h...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
> :> >
> :> > > I know of no feature of NT that one or more other operating systems do not
> :> > > already have and in most cases they are done better.
> :> >
>
> Compatibility with Windows NT programs?
Already available on Windows 95.