Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ToySoldier who wrote (12367)	11/19/1998 9:56:00 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Toy - OS/2 and NT are basically one and the same (same parents). This is completely wrong. OS/2 was a ground-up effort by IBM with the MSFT team contributing graphics and driver code, it was done initially by a small team in England and later transferred to Boca. NT was based architecturally on the MICA operating system developed by DEC for the 64 bit PRISM project (which later morphed into Alpha but without the OS). It owes much of its heritage to VMS and RSX-11M. There is no similarity in architecture, design, or implementation between OS/2 and NT. NT is closer to Unix than it is to OS/2. About the only similarity between NT and OS/2 is that they were originally designed about the same time (1985-86) although of course MICA sat on the shelf for 2 years (along with the 64 bit silicon work) courtesy of Ken Olsen. I think a lot of your posts about the future and importance of directory structures are well taken, but your factual basis on the OS discussion is just not correct. You need to do a little research on the architecture and heritage of the major OS designs before you get stuck in a rathole on this...