[Info-vax] Dave Cutler, Prism, DEC, Microsoft, etc.

[FredK]

"P. Sture" <paul.nospam at sture.ch> wrote in message 
news:paul.nospam-97E4EE.21424211112009 at pbook.sture.ch...
> In article <rqrgf5l0duc5n8247ofodn728nd2gbbld4 at 4ax.com>,
> jls <notvalid at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:31:07 -0600, Paul Raulerson
>> <paul at raulersons.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Not to mention that there is at least as much "borrowed" technology
>> >from UNIX in NT there is from VMS.
>> >And when you hit Windows XP, there is far more UNIX based technology
>> >cloned into NT than from VMS.
>> >
>> >I have never fully understood this, since in some ways, VMS is clearly
>> >superior to the contemporary UNIX
>> >implementations of that time.
>>
>> My recollection from that time period is reading a few articles
>> written in mags from erstwhile VMS Internals experts that NT had VMS
>> written all over it.
>>
>> It may not be so true today, but the earlier versions, IIRC, were so
>> VMS-ish internally that even some of the code was copied verbatim
>> (i.e., including comments with the initials of VMS engineers).
>
> There was a series of articles in Windows NT Magazine in 1997 exploring
> NT process and memory management.  I remember thinking that I could have
> written large chunks of it myself, based purely on VMS knowledge.
>

Interesting discussion.

A couple things.  First is that even when you start with a relatively blank 
slate, the end results tend to flow from your past work.  The NT kernel is 
what you would expect as the next generation from someone who had a main 
role in the RSX and VMS kernels.  You have some fundamentals, you know what 
worked well, and you know what you would have done better in retrospect.

In terms of code with "initials of VMS engineers"... I find that a bit 
suspect, unless of course you remember that a lot of ex-VMS engineers 
journeyed to DECwest and eventually to Microsoft, like my mentor Rod 
Gamache.  At the time there was little to no kernel code in VMS written in 
C.  I'll avoid discussion of the Prism stuff, since while I know some things 
from interesting people - none of it is anything I could claim as 100% 
picture of the truth.

Lastly, what most people forget is that NT wasn't designed as the next 
Windows.  It was designed as a kernel that could host multiple executive 
environments.  At the time OS2, Windows, and UNIX executives were envisioned 
and I recall this being talked about during the first NT Developers 
Conference.  Over time Windows became the focus and the bright line between 
the kernel and Windows ended up being compromised - IMHO for performance 
reasons - like the changes in the graphics subsystem.