Just wondering: Would you like Microsoft adapt a Unix kernel?
- Thread starter concorde
- Start date
Bob Jeffery
New Member
anything with the words "ms-dos" scare me. Though sometimes i just end explorer.exe and use ms-dos(command promt) and taskmgr.exe to do stuff 
concorde
New Member
Yes there is a part of Windows now that used to be called MS-DOS (Command Prompt). I know that it isn't supposed to be called MS-DOS but I call it MS-DOS anyways because this technology (the C:\ prompt) has been on the screen for almost thirty years and it hasn't changed much. Yes, MS-DOS is not the kernel itself in XP, Me, NT, Vista and 2000 and all the others between 1999 - now, but it still lives on as Windows' version of the shell. It's time to move on, people, to a full Unix foundation, with little alterations to the kernel. The command prompt, MS-DOS, or any other names out there for it, is inferior to a Unix shell. I'm not talking about Windows Server series, I haven't used it, but I have used XP, Vista and all the way down to Windows 2, and then the MS-DOS lineup. Yes there was a Windows 2, it's very very rare now, and it was just a glorified MS-DOS shell with colors and icons that were not icons that you see even in Windows 95. What I'm talking about is Windows should be made in a way where I can open up a bash (or other) shell and not a Command (MS-DOS) prompt and communicate with the Unix kernel in a Unix way - the same way I would at MacOS, Solaris and Linux PCs. Windows has yet use a pure Unix kernel. You see, if I can't use Unix/Linux commands, than it is not pure Unix, even if it is POSIX compliant.
I am talking about standard Windows operating systems, like XP and Vista, not the server version - but the server version is not a version of Unix. (it's not Unix enough to be considered even a distant cousin of a pure Unix, like MacOS.)
I am talking about standard Windows operating systems, like XP and Vista, not the server version - but the server version is not a version of Unix. (it's not Unix enough to be considered even a distant cousin of a pure Unix, like MacOS.)
chibicitiberiu
New Member
Check here: http://www.metacafe.com/channels/C.T.A./ (latest 3 vids) if you want to see how old windows were in the past (1,2,3).
And concorde, you are wrong. Windows 95, 98 and Me are still based on MS-DOS (booting). They are still hybrid versions with both 16/32 bit. They still use the MS-DOS kernel. Windows 2000 (NT 5), xp (5.??) and Vista (NT 6) are NT-based and use the NT kernel, and they are fully 32-bit (and 64 bit xp and vista)
And concorde, you are wrong. Windows 95, 98 and Me are still based on MS-DOS (booting). They are still hybrid versions with both 16/32 bit. They still use the MS-DOS kernel. Windows 2000 (NT 5), xp (5.??) and Vista (NT 6) are NT-based and use the NT kernel, and they are fully 32-bit (and 64 bit xp and vista)
jdbennet
New Member
windows nt based:
NT based systems are from the ground up, entirely 32 bit and has been ported to many platforms like Alpha, Itanium, x86_64, PowerPC and MIPS.
program manager era:
3.1
3.5
3.51
explorer era:
nt4 (windows nt)
nt5 (windows 2000)
nt 5.1 (xp)
nt 5.2 (home server, server 2003 and xp pro x64)
nt6 (vista/server 2008)
nt 6.1 or nt7 will be the next version of windows
DOS based:
program manager era:
windows 1.01
windows 2.03 and 2.11
(these two are essentially dos apps and are FULLY 16 BIT)
windows 3
windows 3.1
windows 3.11 (windows for workgroups)
windows 3.2 (only in china)
explorer era:
windows 95
windows 98
windows 98 SE
Windows me
(these are all hybrid 16/32 bit systems)
NT based systems are from the ground up, entirely 32 bit and has been ported to many platforms like Alpha, Itanium, x86_64, PowerPC and MIPS.
program manager era:
3.1
3.5
3.51
explorer era:
nt4 (windows nt)
nt5 (windows 2000)
nt 5.1 (xp)
nt 5.2 (home server, server 2003 and xp pro x64)
nt6 (vista/server 2008)
nt 6.1 or nt7 will be the next version of windows
DOS based:
program manager era:
windows 1.01
windows 2.03 and 2.11
(these two are essentially dos apps and are FULLY 16 BIT)
windows 3
windows 3.1
windows 3.11 (windows for workgroups)
windows 3.2 (only in china)
explorer era:
windows 95
windows 98
windows 98 SE
Windows me
(these are all hybrid 16/32 bit systems)
Last edited:
concorde
New Member
I mentioned that they used an MS-DOS kernel though not directly as I am an abstract writer, that's why I don't teach English
. (Yes, MS-DOS is not the kernel itself in XP, Me, NT, Vista and 2000 and all the others between 1999 - now; [1999 was when 2000 was starting to roll off the factory belt]) I write too much and ramble, so when I was talking about NT I started talking about MS-DOS and Windows 9x. Sorry for the confusion. Anyways, any thoughts on the new Mac? I've used it here and ther, but I don't like the prices...if only Apple would let users buy a non-Mac version of the OS, I would happily buy it. It's a great operating system, but $2 or 3k for the hardware is not justifiable. It's no better than say Dell, HP, Gateway and Lenovo's studio/high-end offerings.
tlarkin
VIP Member
DOS was last found in Windows ME, after that the NT kernel just has the command line interface, that is all. Some DOS commands are the same as NT but over all they are not the same.
Also, the NT kernel does in fact have some robust command line applications, the problem is no one ever uses them. It does lack however some powerful tools like grep for example, but at the same time they do have some very similar command line tools. Their server products, like Exchange, have plenty of command line tools you can use, that can be compared to Unix's command line. Not the same in the respect of how Unix operates, but the same how you can execute some commands to get the job done. The problem is, most people who use windows prefer GUI based applications instead.
To give you a comparison of what you might find in Unix and in Windows, I will compare du, and diruse.
For Unix:
For Windows
Both commands accomplish the same goals. One thing that sucks is that with Microsoft you typically have to download a resource kit from them to get all the additional command line tools. They aren't in the NT systems by default.
Also, OS X, is Unix, but it is Apple's form of Unix and it is far from any standard Unix OS. They have in some regards, reinvented the wheel, but that may be taking it a bit too far. The open command is huge for me in OS X, and no other form of Linux or Unix have it, only OS X does.
I used to be a Windows sys admin, and I supported 70 to 80 HP Proliant servers, all running Novell or Windows 2k3 server, and around 10,000 Windows clients. I now support 25ish Xserves and 6,000 Macs, and I prefer to support and use the Macs over anything else these days. My Macbook Pro is by far the best laptop I have ever owned, and before I was a sys admin I was a hardware repair tech for 6 years. So, I have serviced and repaired just about every single brand of laptop out there, and I have to say that the MBP is still the best laptop I have ever had in my possession.
Also, the NT kernel does in fact have some robust command line applications, the problem is no one ever uses them. It does lack however some powerful tools like grep for example, but at the same time they do have some very similar command line tools. Their server products, like Exchange, have plenty of command line tools you can use, that can be compared to Unix's command line. Not the same in the respect of how Unix operates, but the same how you can execute some commands to get the job done. The problem is, most people who use windows prefer GUI based applications instead.
To give you a comparison of what you might find in Unix and in Windows, I will compare du, and diruse.
For Unix:
Code:
sudo du -d -h -x 1 /
Code:
DIRUSE /M /q:1.5 /* C:\Both commands accomplish the same goals. One thing that sucks is that with Microsoft you typically have to download a resource kit from them to get all the additional command line tools. They aren't in the NT systems by default.
Also, OS X, is Unix, but it is Apple's form of Unix and it is far from any standard Unix OS. They have in some regards, reinvented the wheel, but that may be taking it a bit too far. The open command is huge for me in OS X, and no other form of Linux or Unix have it, only OS X does.
I used to be a Windows sys admin, and I supported 70 to 80 HP Proliant servers, all running Novell or Windows 2k3 server, and around 10,000 Windows clients. I now support 25ish Xserves and 6,000 Macs, and I prefer to support and use the Macs over anything else these days. My Macbook Pro is by far the best laptop I have ever owned, and before I was a sys admin I was a hardware repair tech for 6 years. So, I have serviced and repaired just about every single brand of laptop out there, and I have to say that the MBP is still the best laptop I have ever had in my possession.
concorde
New Member
What I'm saying is that the NT kernel is too modified that it can't be called Win-UX or Windows Unix or anything linking Windows to Unix. If you rounded up anyone familiar with computer operating systems and asked which OS (Mac/Solaris/Linux or a NT OS) can you use standard Unix commands w/o relearning their purpose, the answer would be Mac/Solaris/Linux. I can't sit down at a NT machine and type in Unix commands in their pure format. Windows is not Unix, it may follow POSIX (barely), but it is not a version of Unix.
I have used generic Unix commands in a shell session in a Mac. I can go home and use those same commands on my Linux machine. On a Windows machine, I have to use their commands - commands that would not be found on a Mac or Linux machine. That's one pointer that Windows is not Unix. Also the fact that the filesystem is not a standard Unix or Linux filesystem - another sign. We already know that the kernel is too diluted that it has no clout - that's what happens when people pour water in liquid handwashing soap - it loses its purpose (by the way, don't buy foam soap as they ratio from soap to water is 1:10 - they put one part soap and ten parts water, and it isn't soap anymore
) Anyways, Microsoft has left little evidence of a Unix presence in their products, the only thing I can find is TCP/IP support ha ha
I have used generic Unix commands in a shell session in a Mac. I can go home and use those same commands on my Linux machine. On a Windows machine, I have to use their commands - commands that would not be found on a Mac or Linux machine. That's one pointer that Windows is not Unix. Also the fact that the filesystem is not a standard Unix or Linux filesystem - another sign. We already know that the kernel is too diluted that it has no clout - that's what happens when people pour water in liquid handwashing soap - it loses its purpose (by the way, don't buy foam soap as they ratio from soap to water is 1:10 - they put one part soap and ten parts water, and it isn't soap anymore
) Anyways, Microsoft has left little evidence of a Unix presence in their products, the only thing I can find is TCP/IP support ha ha
jdbennet
New Member
classic MacOS wasnt i dont think
but OSX is based on BSD UNIX.
it worked well for apple, because they could change easialy as they didnt have a lot of hardware to support (they make thier machines) and there isnt much third party software to be made to work with it though
windos could never survive such a drastic change though for the opposite reasons above.
but OSX is based on BSD UNIX.
it worked well for apple, because they could change easialy as they didnt have a lot of hardware to support (they make thier machines) and there isnt much third party software to be made to work with it though
windos could never survive such a drastic change though for the opposite reasons above.
tlarkin
VIP Member
What I'm saying is that the NT kernel is too modified that it can't be called Win-UX or Windows Unix or anything linking Windows to Unix. If you rounded up anyone familiar with computer operating systems and asked which OS (Mac/Solaris/Linux or a NT OS) can you use standard Unix commands w/o relearning their purpose, the answer would be Mac/Solaris/Linux. I can't sit down at a NT machine and type in Unix commands in their pure format. Windows is not Unix, it may follow POSIX (barely), but it is not a version of Unix.
I have used generic Unix commands in a shell session in a Mac. I can go home and use those same commands on my Linux machine. On a Windows machine, I have to use their commands - commands that would not be found on a Mac or Linux machine. That's one pointer that Windows is not Unix. Also the fact that the filesystem is not a standard Unix or Linux filesystem - another sign. We already know that the kernel is too diluted that it has no clout - that's what happens when people pour water in liquid handwashing soap - it loses its purpose (by the way, don't buy foam soap as they ratio from soap to water is 1:10 - they put one part soap and ten parts water, and it isn't soap anymore
OK, I agree with you, but trust me OS X is not exactly like Unix. Apple changed a lot of things under the hood. While some commands exist, and while some exist but have different syntax, a lot of things are done in a very different manner. OS X and Debian Linux share a lot of similarities, but they also have a lot of differences. It wasn't until 10.5 that Apple actually made OS X Unix-certified. Which means if you run X11, you can probably compile a Unix app to work on OS X, and developers can now port their Unix apps to OS X a lot easier. However, I still say there are way too many differences to call it BSD, it is just derived from BSD. At the core it is Unix, but it is Apple's version of Unix for sure.
Shell commands don't make up the entirety of an OS either. Lots of Linux and Unix OSes have different BASH $PATH, and a lot of them use different sets of commands or modified commands, which is why you have to look at that versions manual page sometime to see the syntax. Some things are pretty standard like chown and chmod, but at the same time I have had chmod in some Linux distros use really awkward syntax before. Apple has made up plenty of Apple-only shell commands that aren't found in any other distro of Unix. Microsoft just did everything their own way but at the core of it, its very root has a lot of similarities to a Unix kernel. Which is why you can say Unix is the grandfather of every OS out there, since almost all OSes come from the base of Unix. I am talking about the design aspect, not the necessarily the coding, the commands, and the applications them self.
They all follow the same design model as well:
Kernel > shell > GUI
However, in Windows you are always running as a root user, which is why it's security sucks a fat one compared to Unix/Linux.