4 ms·

I saw DEC windows and immediately thought of Windows NT 3.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 [edit]

I saw DEC windows and immediately thought of Windows NT 3.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 [edit] So, I guess the history of 'windows NT' is lost on many. 'NT' started with version 3.1 as the MS/IBM breakup from the joint OS/2 venture happened. It was their first real push into 32 bit protected mode operating systems and supported really crazy cool things like 'multiple processors' and totally different architectures than x86, like DEC. Give the link a look.

hnlmorg 9mo ago
You’ve linked to NT, not Win 3.x They were entirely different OSs. Edit: the previous poster has since completely rewritten this comment to talk about windows NT. they originally talked about Windows (without the NT) then linked to an NT wiki. Hence my reply. @OP Poor show on your ninja edit.
- jmward01 9mo ago
  No, I linked to Windows NT 3.1. The history here is important. It supported DEC alpha, hence the post.
  - hnlmorg 9mo ago
    Except NT 3.1 is still NT and NT didn’t “invent” the 3.1 design. They modelled it after Windows 3.1 (though technically Windows 3.0) and named NT as NT 3.1 for brand familiarity. So NT 3.1 != Windows 3.1 As you said “history here is important”.
    - jmward01 9mo ago
      I'm not sure what you think I was implying with my post? The history I was pointing out was Windows NT 3.1 supported the DEC alpha processor (3.1 was marketing and implied the UI was similar to windows 3.x, which it was). This was a connection between DEC and windows that I thought was interesting and not the subject of the post, but in some interesting ways ties the two together. DEC did many things for a very long time like make machines, operating systems and processors [1] and is likely good fodder for a top level HN post in its own right. I remember dreaming about running a DEC NT3.1 machine when I heard about it. I had a friend in the AF who showed me the install disks for NT 3.1, a double stack of 1.44mb 3.5" disks. It must have taken hours to install. Anyways, that is the linkage. Take a look. It is fun history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
      - hnlmorg 9mo ago
        I'm old enough to have lived it. :)
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
- tombert 9mo ago
  I think NT is correct; NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who famously worked on VMS stuff before working for Microsoft. I think the poster was correct in posting NT.
  - hnlmorg 9mo ago
    No they’re not. The GUI design came from Windows 3.0. What NT do was take the design of that and the branding of Windows to help sell NT. But NT 3.1 is a completely different OS to Windows 3.1. They might look the same, but one has OS/2 heritage while the other has DOS heritage (to overly simplify their origins, but I’m in a rush this morning so can share more accurate details later if you wish). Edit: the GP changed their comment. The original copy didn’t reference NT, it just said “Windows 3.1”. Hence my reply.
    - tombert 9mo ago
      Even if the GUI design elements originated with Windows, I don’t think it’s incompetent to mention Windows NT when VMS comes up. Due to Cutler’s origins, a lot of people consider NT as the spiritual successor to VAX.
      - hnlmorg 9mo ago
        Fair point.
      - hapless 9mo ago
        spiritual successor? how about "ghoulish horror" ;) the worst example of "second system effect" i have ever heard of
        tombert 9mo ago
        To be fair, I actually think that the NT kernel is fine, and arguably better than Linux. It’s the rest of Windows that is terrible.
    - hapless 9mo ago
- jmward01 9mo ago
  I put '[edit]' and new comments below that and didn't edit anything above, including the link. The post above the edit is all original. I'm sorry you have been confused through this.
  - hnlmorg 9mo ago
    With the greatest of respect, if you’d put “Windows NT 3.1” originally then I wouldn’t have commented. But you didn’t. Anyway, I think we’re both plenty experienced on both platforms so I don’t see any need for us to argue over NT or not to NT.
hapless 9mo ago
the common element between VMS (the subject of this post) and Windows NT, is Dave cutler. Cutler lived in an extremely overcomplicated world of VMS kernel primitives, and given the chance to let his freak flag fly, he really overcomplicated his past work for Windows NT In case you ever wonder why your 1 gb/s ssd has ~100 mb/s throughput on windows. there are often quite literally hundreds of layers of filters on even the simplest i/o but it is super flexible! just slower than iced treacle. aren't you glad you had an object oriented I/O subsystem supporting microkernel services and aspect-oriented programming? i bet you use those features way more often than you read or write files from disk

hnlmorg 9mo ago

You’ve linked to NT, not Win 3.x They were entirely different OSs. Edit: the previous poster has since completely rewritten this comment to talk about windows NT. they originally talked about Windows (without the NT) then linked to an NT wiki. Hence my reply. @OP Poor show on your ninja edit.

jmward01 9mo ago
No, I linked to Windows NT 3.1. The history here is important. It supported DEC alpha, hence the post.
- hnlmorg 9mo ago
  Except NT 3.1 is still NT and NT didn’t “invent” the 3.1 design. They modelled it after Windows 3.1 (though technically Windows 3.0) and named NT as NT 3.1 for brand familiarity. So NT 3.1 != Windows 3.1 As you said “history here is important”.
  - jmward01 9mo ago
    I'm not sure what you think I was implying with my post? The history I was pointing out was Windows NT 3.1 supported the DEC alpha processor (3.1 was marketing and implied the UI was similar to windows 3.x, which it was). This was a connection between DEC and windows that I thought was interesting and not the subject of the post, but in some interesting ways ties the two together. DEC did many things for a very long time like make machines, operating systems and processors [1] and is likely good fodder for a top level HN post in its own right. I remember dreaming about running a DEC NT3.1 machine when I heard about it. I had a friend in the AF who showed me the install disks for NT 3.1, a double stack of 1.44mb 3.5" disks. It must have taken hours to install. Anyways, that is the linkage. Take a look. It is fun history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
    - hnlmorg 9mo ago
      I'm old enough to have lived it. :)
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
tombert 9mo ago
I think NT is correct; NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who famously worked on VMS stuff before working for Microsoft. I think the poster was correct in posting NT.
- hnlmorg 9mo ago
  No they’re not. The GUI design came from Windows 3.0. What NT do was take the design of that and the branding of Windows to help sell NT. But NT 3.1 is a completely different OS to Windows 3.1. They might look the same, but one has OS/2 heritage while the other has DOS heritage (to overly simplify their origins, but I’m in a rush this morning so can share more accurate details later if you wish). Edit: the GP changed their comment. The original copy didn’t reference NT, it just said “Windows 3.1”. Hence my reply.
  - tombert 9mo ago
    Even if the GUI design elements originated with Windows, I don’t think it’s incompetent to mention Windows NT when VMS comes up. Due to Cutler’s origins, a lot of people consider NT as the spiritual successor to VAX.
    - hnlmorg 9mo ago
      Fair point.
    - hapless 9mo ago
      spiritual successor? how about "ghoulish horror" ;) the worst example of "second system effect" i have ever heard of
      - tombert 9mo ago
        To be fair, I actually think that the NT kernel is fine, and arguably better than Linux. It’s the rest of Windows that is terrible.
  - hapless 9mo ago
jmward01 9mo ago
I put '[edit]' and new comments below that and didn't edit anything above, including the link. The post above the edit is all original. I'm sorry you have been confused through this.
- hnlmorg 9mo ago
  With the greatest of respect, if you’d put “Windows NT 3.1” originally then I wouldn’t have commented. But you didn’t. Anyway, I think we’re both plenty experienced on both platforms so I don’t see any need for us to argue over NT or not to NT.

hapless 9mo ago

the common element between VMS (the subject of this post) and Windows NT, is Dave cutler. Cutler lived in an extremely overcomplicated world of VMS kernel primitives, and given the chance to let his freak flag fly, he really overcomplicated his past work for Windows NT In case you ever wonder why your 1 gb/s ssd has ~100 mb/s throughput on windows. there are often quite literally hundreds of layers of filters on even the simplest i/o but it is super flexible! just slower than iced treacle. aren't you glad you had an object oriented I/O subsystem supporting microkernel services and aspect-oriented programming? i bet you use those features way more often than you read or write files from disk