Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2117 comp.windows.ms:12760 comp.os.os2.misc:1405 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!clarkson!grape.ecs.clarkson.edu!towfiq From: towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH Reply-To: towfiq@FTP.COM Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA Date: 16 May 91 11:10:15 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu's message of 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT References: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> <5b_h6k_@rpi.edu> Sender: usenet@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: Ari> Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n Ari> almost) ready kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. >>>>> On 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. >>>>> Floyd) said: Barry> Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ), Barry> Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as Barry> DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?) Barry> "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc. Barry> access to a computing platform. Basically, except that Mach isn't Unix; Mach itself is a message-based micro-kernel, on top of which people have put a Unix-compatible OS. One could also write a DOS on top of Mach, or an OS/2, or a VMS.... In fact, I am hoping that someday (perhaps after the GNU Kernel is released) someone WILL do this! -- Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, Inc. towfiq@FTP.COM Work No.: +1 617 246 0900 Home No.: +1 617 488 2818 "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah