3 ms·
Windows started on the DOS kernel, so switching to a new kernel wouldn't dismantle the whole product. Although I don't see a reason why NT should be inferior t
by Longhanks 10y ago
Windows started on the DOS kernel, so switching to a new kernel wouldn't dismantle the whole product.
Although I don't see a reason why NT should be inferior to Linux from Microsoft's perspective.
- ygra 10y agoWindows NT is a completely different kernel, so was 9x. So Microsoft actually changed kernels at least twice.
- bitcrazed 10y agoDOS had no kernel - it was just a bunch of code that ran on top of a bunch of PC-compatible hardware. There was no separation between kernel-space and user-space.
- JdeBP 10y agoYou are applying an overly restrictive definition to something that is just the nut analogy, which is a vague analogy that does not imply "spaces". MS/PC-DOS, and DR-DOS, were not just "a bunch of code" and had a definite structure when it came to operating system design. They comprised the basic disc operating system, the basic input/output system (incorporating built-in and loadable device drivers), the command processor, and the housekeeping utilities. * https://superuser.com/a/329479 https://superuser.com/a/329479 The kernel of (386 Enhanced Mode) DOS+Windows analogous to the Windows NT kernel being discussed here is the VMM and the VxDs, with krnl386.exe as a distinguished Extended DOS program running in the distinguished system VM. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html