4 ms·
Kernel-wise, there isn't much common code between OS/2 and NT. Windows NT 3.1 is more like VMS with the Windows graphical subsystem ported on top of it. But ye
by rlkf 6y ago
Kernel-wise, there isn't much common code between OS/2 and NT. Windows NT 3.1 is more like VMS with the Windows graphical subsystem ported on top of it.
But yes, running OS/2 was fun days, much better than Windows 3.11 (if you had memory enough).
- guessbest 6y agoSorry to be pedantic, but Windows NT 3.5 was the VMS version of windows to compete with OS/2, and Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was the mass market version built on top of DOS. If you bought through a small shop, they would add a batch file to autorun the windows executable that launched the GUI from an ini file. Nobody had the Windows 3.11 version if I remember correctly
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- caspper69 6y agoThis is just not true. Windows NT has ALWAYS been based on Dave Cutler's code, which shares a lot with VMS, because he architected that as well. Windows 3.0 and 3.1, the non-NT flavors, ran on DOS. Windows 3.11 added networking to Windows 3.1, and was wildly successful. Google Windows for Workgroups.
- guessbest 6y agoI don't think you read my comment. I know that Windows 3.x were not based on NT. They were DOS shell extensions essential that could run DOS, but not as well as OS/2. Windows 3.11 didn't sell hardly at all, but everyone mentions it like it did. It is a common mistake. Windows NT 3.1 was just something I forgot about. Windows 3.51 was the popular version. All this was before the internet as we knew it took off. People only had access to what was available in the book store or computer store, and online updates was usually for enterprise subscribers only.