Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2134 comp.windows.ms:12801 comp.os.os2.misc:1429 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bigsur!bcars53!mussar From: mussar@bcars53.uucp (G. Mussar) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH Message-ID: <1991May17.204330.20552@bigsur.uucp> Sender: news@bigsur.uucp Reply-To: mussar@bnr.ca (G. Mussar) Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada References: <5b_h6k_@rpi.edu> Date: Fri, 17 May 91 20:43:30 GMT In article towfiq@FTP.COM writes: >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! I've heard that IBM has an experimental version of OS/2 running on top of Mach (I believe the discussion was on BIX somewhere). I doubt you will find any IBM person to confirm that, but... time will tell. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mussar |Internet: mussar@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-4937 BNR Ltd. | | FAX: (613) 763-2626