4 ms·

Multiuser Unix with full preemptive multitasking, memory protection, and with a security model, vs. single-user DOS shell with only partial preemptive multitask

by 4ad 10y ago

Multiuser Unix with full preemptive multitasking, memory protection, and with a security model, vs. single-user DOS shell with only partial preemptive multitasking, no memory protection and no security model.

pjmlp 10y ago
Most of that stuff didn't matter for the single user use case of Windows back then. Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong. I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > Most of that stuff didn't matter for the single user use case of Windows back then. It mattered just as much as it matters now, and it will always continue to matter. People didn't know that it mattered because people didn't know anything better. After all, for the vast majority of people crappy DOS-based Windows from Microsoft was the only thing they could afford to use (in every sense of the word, not just financial sense). > Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong. No. 16-bit software was cooperatively scheduled, and there was a lot of 16-bit software in the Windows 95 era. Even significant components of the first version of Windows 95 were 16-bit. Hell, lots of drivers were real-mode drivers! Software used virtual memory, but there was zero, nada, nil memory protection. In fact it was pretty standard for programs to stomp over each other's memory as a "feature". > I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version. Who cares.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Not everyone was running old 16-bit software. As for who cares, the customers that value my detailed knowledge of how the Windows stack works, since I don't mix technology with OS religion.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    Ah, the Win16Mutex. My personal favorite however (especially when discussing the OS/2 2.0 fiasco) is how the continued dependence on DOS allowed Caldera lawsuits to continue.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      I'd love to hear more about that!
  - dang 10y ago
    > Who cares. Whoa. This breaks the HN guidelines. Please edit personal nastiness out of your comments here. Your comment would be so much better without that last bit.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      No, his mention of his experience working with Windows 3.0 is completely irrelevant in this discussion. It's just a very weak attempt at appeal to authority. And if you look in his message history, it's something he does consistently.
      - dang 10y ago
        Even assuming all that is true, it doesn't change the requirement that you (i.e. everyone) be civil when posting here.
  - jboles 10y ago
    > Who cares. Looks like someone hit a nerve there. Downvoted.

by 4ad 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago

Most of that stuff didn't matter for the single user use case of Windows back then. Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong. I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version.

4ad 10y ago
> Most of that stuff didn't matter for the single user use case of Windows back then. It mattered just as much as it matters now, and it will always continue to matter. People didn't know that it mattered because people didn't know anything better. After all, for the vast majority of people crappy DOS-based Windows from Microsoft was the only thing they could afford to use (in every sense of the word, not just financial sense). > Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong. No. 16-bit software was cooperatively scheduled, and there was a lot of 16-bit software in the Windows 95 era. Even significant components of the first version of Windows 95 were 16-bit. Hell, lots of drivers were real-mode drivers! Software used virtual memory, but there was zero, nada, nil memory protection. In fact it was pretty standard for programs to stomp over each other's memory as a "feature". > I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version. Who cares.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Not everyone was running old 16-bit software. As for who cares, the customers that value my detailed knowledge of how the Windows stack works, since I don't mix technology with OS religion.
- yuhong 10y ago
  Ah, the Win16Mutex. My personal favorite however (especially when discussing the OS/2 2.0 fiasco) is how the continued dependence on DOS allowed Caldera lawsuits to continue.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    I'd love to hear more about that!
- dang 10y ago
  > Who cares. Whoa. This breaks the HN guidelines. Please edit personal nastiness out of your comments here. Your comment would be so much better without that last bit.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    No, his mention of his experience working with Windows 3.0 is completely irrelevant in this discussion. It's just a very weak attempt at appeal to authority. And if you look in his message history, it's something he does consistently.
    - dang 10y ago
      Even assuming all that is true, it doesn't change the requirement that you (i.e. everyone) be civil when posting here.
- jboles 10y ago
  > Who cares. Looks like someone hit a nerve there. Downvoted.