3 ms·

Windows NT started from scratch. It was never an OS/2 fork.

danboarder 9y ago
Not from scratch. It started as "OS/2 NT" in partnership with IBM. Microsoft renamed OS/2 NT to Windows NT. See here: http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and...
- Zardoz84 9y ago
  Also, HPFS was like NTFS v0.9
- kyberias 9y ago
  Yes from scratch. Names matter little. From your source: "Microsoft's internal project name for the new OS was OS/2 NT, because Microsoft's intention was for the new OS to succeed OS/2 yet retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface." Note how Russinovich talks about a "new OS". The NT (kernel) never had any OS/2 code in it, it was a totally different project. The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. OS/2 in NT was merely a subsystem layer next to DOS and Posix, somewhat like today there is the Linux subsystem layer in Windows 10. A good source is this: https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717 https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Mic...
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    > The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. I thought it's pretty well established now that the NT in the name was named after the target architecture: Intel i860 "N10", not MIPS.
    - kyberias 9y ago
      You're right. My point was, however, that it wasn't an x86.
  - kjs3 9y ago
    Agreed, I don't mean 'fork' in the sense they took the code and went their own way, I mean 'fork' in the sense they took all the IP and lessons learned and reimplemented an OS/2 they had sole control over. "retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface" Linux isn't Unix. KJ
kjs3 9y ago
It was in no way started from scratch. Microsoft took all they learned from OS/2 including the API and had basically the same team (including David Cutler, who was originally in charge of "OS/2 v3") and reimplement an operating system they didn't have to share with IBM. To pretend NT is somehow not directly related to OS/2 is the worst sort of historical revisionism; it's in fact a lie.

Not from scratch. It started as "OS/2 NT" in partnership with IBM. Microsoft renamed OS/2 NT to Windows NT. See here: http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story http://www.itprotoday.com/management-mobility/windows-nt-and...

Zardoz84 9y ago
Also, HPFS was like NTFS v0.9
kyberias 9y ago
Yes from scratch. Names matter little. From your source: "Microsoft's internal project name for the new OS was OS/2 NT, because Microsoft's intention was for the new OS to succeed OS/2 yet retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface." Note how Russinovich talks about a "new OS". The NT (kernel) never had any OS/2 code in it, it was a totally different project. The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. OS/2 in NT was merely a subsystem layer next to DOS and Posix, somewhat like today there is the Linux subsystem layer in Windows 10. A good source is this: https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717 https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Mic...
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  > The first target processor architecture for NT wasn't even x86, it was MIPS. I thought it's pretty well established now that the NT in the name was named after the target architecture: Intel i860 "N10", not MIPS.
  - kyberias 9y ago
    You're right. My point was, however, that it wasn't an x86.
- kjs3 9y ago
  Agreed, I don't mean 'fork' in the sense they took the code and went their own way, I mean 'fork' in the sense they took all the IP and lessons learned and reimplemented an OS/2 they had sole control over. "retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface" Linux isn't Unix. KJ

kjs3 9y ago

It was in no way started from scratch. Microsoft took all they learned from OS/2 including the API and had basically the same team (including David Cutler, who was originally in charge of "OS/2 v3") and reimplement an operating system they didn't have to share with IBM. To pretend NT is somehow not directly related to OS/2 is the worst sort of historical revisionism; it's in fact a lie.