“Art Baker” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
>
> I can only assume you never saw one of Ken Olson’s suits… 
>
Ugh. You’re right. That WAS a sight. I was thinking of that swine Palmer,
sorry.
“Everhart, Glenn (FUSA)” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> What, nostalgic? VMS still is available, still runs.
>
So does the Amiga. And you can still buy PDP-11s (well, they’re SORT of
PDP-11s). That doesn’t mean it isn’t out of date.
If everybody just knew what they were doing, and their management let them
do all the testing they needed, then there’d BE no driver problem. Where IS
John Lennon when we need him? “Imagine there’s no bad drivers, I wonder if
you can…”
“Roddy, Mark” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> I cite mine. Numerous failed microkernel ventures, many of which ‘gave a
> process to a driver’ none of which were commercially viable.
>
If you’re referring to Mach… that’s an entirely apples to oranges
comparison.
> Another source: an operating system known as ‘windows nt’ all versions
prior
> to nt4.0, see ‘video sucks’.
>
Not feeling like working, I attempted to search the web for comparitive
performance figures (NT V3.51 to NT V4). Sadly, I can’t seem to find any of
this information.
However, one could argue that the important issue in the perception of
increased overall graphics performance between NT V3.51 and NT V4 was moving
the WINDOW MANAGER into kernel mode, not moving the drivers. Remember, the
drivers in V3.51 didn’t have to ring-transition to access their hardware in
V3.51…
Peter
OSR