3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoYou're right. My point was, however, that it wasn't an x86.
- kjs3 9y agoAgreed, 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