On 2025-01-02 18:40, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
>>>>
>>>> That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
>>>>
>>>> And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
>>>
>>> None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
>>
>> They copied VMS.
>>
>> They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
>>
>> ...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
>>
>> That is not building a program "from scratch".
>
>
> "Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
>

It is not.

As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
of Windows NT are to VMS.

'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'

<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>

'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
$50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6sqdnjls21co48iqcruqgq190gv1q43pl1@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
>>>
>>> They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
>>
>>You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
>>
>>.. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
>
>
> I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did.

Just goes to show what you *know* isn't necessarily factual.

Windows NT 3.x is a spin-off of OS/2 which was a joint venture between
Microsoft and IBM.

> You
> are an idiot.

Keep telling yourself that, until you realize that you really are an idiot
who does NOT know as much as he claims to.

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ukr$3gllh$2@dont-email.me...
> On 2025-01-02 11:40, Joel wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
>>>>
>>>> They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
>>>
>>> You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
>>>
>>> .. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
>>
>>
>> I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You
>> are an idiot.
>>
>
> Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from scratch".

Let's not forget what it inherited from the OS/2 project with IBM. So
technically speaking Win NT is a spinoff of OS/2.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nqcenj50jcmgchaqm2s50kk24d7i8u6e3f@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>On 2025-01-02 14:05, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You
>>>>> are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from
>>>> scratch".
>>>
>>> "Concepts" != "code", *doofus*.
>>
>>So if I write a novel about a Canadian secret agent with a "sanction to
>>kill"...
>>
>>...Ian Fleming's estate won't come around?
>
>
> Yeah. It's your new language, your new creation. Just as
> Windows NT's core components are

<snip> ....derived from OS/2.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
>>>>>
>>>>> And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
>>>>
>>>> None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
>>>
>>> They copied VMS.
>>>
>>> They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
>>>
>>> ...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
>>>
>>> That is not building a program "from scratch".
>>
>> "Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
>
>It is not.
>
>As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
>of Windows NT are to VMS.
>
>'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
>Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
>Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
>Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
>terminology was copied verbatim.'
>
><https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
>
>'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
>following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
>threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
>MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
>$50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'

This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright as
such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
simply created something that had some association with an existing,
competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
same thing, no.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 12:05, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
>>>>
>>>> They copied VMS.
>>>>
>>>> They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
>>>>
>>>> ...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
>>>>
>>>> That is not building a program "from scratch".
>>>
>>> "Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
>>
>> It is not.
>>
>> As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
>> of Windows NT are to VMS.
>>
>> 'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
>> Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
>> Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
>> terminology was copied verbatim.'
>>
>> <https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
>>
>> 'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
>> following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
>> threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
>> MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
>> $50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'
>
>
> This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright as
> such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
> even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
> simply created something that had some association with an existing,
> competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
> same thing, no.
Sorry, but now you're an expert on IP law?

Your argument was that it was built "from scratch".

It clearly wasn't.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> They copied VMS.
>>>>>
>>>>> They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not building a program "from scratch".
>>>>
>>>> "Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
>>>
>>> It is not.
>>>
>>> As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
>>> of Windows NT are to VMS.
>>>
>>> 'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
>>> Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
>>> Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
>>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
>>> terminology was copied verbatim.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
>>>
>>> 'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
>>> following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
>>> threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
>>> MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
>>> $50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'
>>
>> This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright as
>> such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
>> even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
>> simply created something that had some association with an existing,
>> competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
>> same thing, no.
>Sorry, but now you're an expert on IP law?

Yeah, I am, because I'm the one who would settle such a matter, going
forward, and hiring Cutler to do something like he'd done before isn't
a copyright violation.

>Your argument was that it was built "from scratch".
>
>It clearly wasn't.

So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
another.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 15:45, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They copied VMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not building a program "from scratch".
>>>>>
>>>>> "Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> It is not.
>>>>
>>>> As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
>>>> of Windows NT are to VMS.
>>>>
>>>> 'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
>>>> Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
>>>> Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
>>>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
>>>> terminology was copied verbatim.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
>>>>
>>>> 'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
>>>> following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
>>>> threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
>>>> MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
>>>> $50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'
>>>
>>> This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright as
>>> such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
>>> even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
>>> simply created something that had some association with an existing,
>>> competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
>>> same thing, no.
>> Sorry, but now you're an expert on IP law?
>
>
> Yeah, I am, because I'm the one who would settle such a matter, going
> forward, and hiring Cutler to do something like he'd done before isn't
> a copyright violation.
>
>
>> Your argument was that it was built "from scratch".
>>
>> It clearly wasn't.
>
>
> So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
> Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
> there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
> another.
Yes:

Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".

Words have meanings.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch".
>>>
>>> It clearly wasn't.
>>
>> So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
>> Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
>> there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
>> another.
>Yes:
>
>Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".
>
>Words have meanings.

It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 16:30, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch".
>>>>
>>>> It clearly wasn't.
>>>
>>> So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
>>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
>>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
>>> Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
>>> there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
>>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
>>> another.
>> Yes:
>>
>> Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".
>>
>> Words have meanings.
>
>
> It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
>

It's not.

There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.

There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.

And that was not done "from scratch".

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch".
>>>>>
>>>>> It clearly wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
>>>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
>>>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
>>>> Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
>>>> there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
>>>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
>>>> another.
>>> Yes:
>>>
>>> Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".
>>>
>>> Words have meanings.
>>
>> It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
>
>It's not.
>
>There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>
>There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>
>And that was not done "from scratch".

OK, nerd ...

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 17:25, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It clearly wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
>>>>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
>>>>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
>>>>> Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
>>>>> there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
>>>>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
>>>>> another.
>>>> Yes:
>>>>
>>>> Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".
>>>>
>>>> Words have meanings.
>>>
>>> It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
>>
>> It's not.
>>
>> There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>>
>> There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>>
>> And that was not done "from scratch".
>
>
> OK, nerd ...
>

Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make
an operating system happen.

You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> [Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D. Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch. You are wrong.
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>>>
>>> There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>>>
>>> And that was not done "from scratch".
>>
>> OK, nerd ...
>
>Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make
>an operating system happen.
>
>You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?

No, I don't. I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 18:01, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> [Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D. Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch. You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It's not.
>>>>
>>>> There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>>>>
>>>> There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>>>>
>>>> And that was not done "from scratch".
>>>
>>> OK, nerd ...
>>
>> Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make
>> an operating system happen.
>>
>> You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
>
>
> No, I don't. I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
> nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
> doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
Copying.

It's been documented.

Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.

On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-01-03 18:01, Joel wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> [Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D.
>>>>>> Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch.  You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that was not done "from scratch".
>>>>
>>>> OK, nerd ...
>>>
>>> Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make
>>> an operating system happen.
>>>
>>> You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
>>
>>
>> No, I don't.  I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
>> nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
>> doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
> Copying.
>
> It's been documented.
>
> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.

Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort. Cutler used ~some~ similar
CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems. Otherwise there is
little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.

I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3. You have to change the BIOS from SRM
to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.

On 2025-01-03 22:23, paranoia wrote:
> On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2025-01-03 18:01, Joel wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> [Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D.
>>>>>>> Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch.  You are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that was not done "from scratch".
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, nerd ...
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to
>>>> make
>>>> an operating system happen.
>>>>
>>>> You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't.  I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
>>> nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
>>> doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
>> Copying.
>>
>> It's been documented.
>>
>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>
> Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort.  Cutler used ~some~ similar
> CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems.  Otherwise there is
> little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.
>
> I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
> boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3.  You have to change the BIOS from SRM
> to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.
>
>

You should do a little more research.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
>> doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
>Copying.
>
>It's been documented.
>
>Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.

That's saying it incorrectly, face it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 11:48, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
>>> doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
>> Copying.
>>
>> It's been documented.
>>
>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>
>
> That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
>

In what way is it incorrect?

'The I/O Manager

Windows NT has a very distinctive and unique I/O manager. Actually, it's
not quite unique, because it the same as the VMS manager. Unlike many
other systems, VMS and NT I/O is packet based and asynchronous. To
communicate with the outside world, a programme asks the kernel to send
some information to a device, and potentially return the reply. This is
when the kernel uses the I/O manager.'

'Memory management

As mentioned above, NT, VMS and even RSX-11M, VMS's predecessor, split
the memory in two - half for the kernel and half for the user. However,
the similarities go deeper than this.
As RSX-11M was expected to work on such a small machine (the PDP-11),
its memory management was very efficient and sophisticated. One of the
ideas that it, and VMS, used were `working sets'; every process had one.
What a working set did was define the upper and lower limit of the
amount of physical memory allocatable to that process. This system
ensures that one process using large amounts of memory will not squash
other, smaller processes into smaller and smaller amounts of memory.
Windows NT's memory manager also uses working sets, along with all the
other optimizations, algorithms and methods used by RSX-11M to get the
most out a computer's memory, no matter how small.'

<https://everything2.com/title/The+similarities+between+VMS+and+Windows+NT>

It goes on to describe many more ways that NT copied VMS:

Kernel and Executive subsytem

Interrupt handling

I/O in general

Scheduling

And this:

'Conclusion

Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>>
>> That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
>
>In what way is it incorrect?
>
>'The I/O Manager
>
>Windows NT has a very distinctive and unique I/O manager. Actually, it's
>not quite unique, because it the same as the VMS manager. Unlike many
>other systems, VMS and NT I/O is packet based and asynchronous. To
>communicate with the outside world, a programme asks the kernel to send
>some information to a device, and potentially return the reply. This is
>when the kernel uses the I/O manager.'
>
>'Memory management
>
>As mentioned above, NT, VMS and even RSX-11M, VMS's predecessor, split
>the memory in two - half for the kernel and half for the user. However,
>the similarities go deeper than this.
>As RSX-11M was expected to work on such a small machine (the PDP-11),
>its memory management was very efficient and sophisticated. One of the
>ideas that it, and VMS, used were `working sets'; every process had one.
>What a working set did was define the upper and lower limit of the
>amount of physical memory allocatable to that process. This system
>ensures that one process using large amounts of memory will not squash
>other, smaller processes into smaller and smaller amounts of memory.
>Windows NT's memory manager also uses working sets, along with all the
>other optimizations, algorithms and methods used by RSX-11M to get the
>most out a computer's memory, no matter how small.'
>
><https://everything2.com/title/The+similarities+between+VMS+and+Windows+NT>
>
>It goes on to describe many more ways that NT copied VMS:
>
>Kernel and Executive subsytem
>
>Interrupt handling
>
>I/O in general
>
>Scheduling
>
>And this:
>
>'Conclusion
>
>Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
>and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
>and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
>million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'

"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
with it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-01-03 22:23, paranoia wrote:
>> On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>>
>> Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort.  Cutler used ~some~ similar
>> CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems.  Otherwise there is
>> little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.
>>
>> I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
>> boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3.  You have to change the BIOS from SRM
>> to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.
>
>You should do a little more research.

Your use of "copy" is the problem.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 13:43, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>>>
>>> That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
>>
>> In what way is it incorrect?
>>
>> 'The I/O Manager
>>
>> Windows NT has a very distinctive and unique I/O manager. Actually, it's
>> not quite unique, because it the same as the VMS manager. Unlike many
>> other systems, VMS and NT I/O is packet based and asynchronous. To
>> communicate with the outside world, a programme asks the kernel to send
>> some information to a device, and potentially return the reply. This is
>> when the kernel uses the I/O manager.'
>>
>> 'Memory management
>>
>> As mentioned above, NT, VMS and even RSX-11M, VMS's predecessor, split
>> the memory in two - half for the kernel and half for the user. However,
>> the similarities go deeper than this.
>> As RSX-11M was expected to work on such a small machine (the PDP-11),
>> its memory management was very efficient and sophisticated. One of the
>> ideas that it, and VMS, used were `working sets'; every process had one.
>> What a working set did was define the upper and lower limit of the
>> amount of physical memory allocatable to that process. This system
>> ensures that one process using large amounts of memory will not squash
>> other, smaller processes into smaller and smaller amounts of memory.
>> Windows NT's memory manager also uses working sets, along with all the
>> other optimizations, algorithms and methods used by RSX-11M to get the
>> most out a computer's memory, no matter how small.'
>>
>> <https://everything2.com/title/The+similarities+between+VMS+and+Windows+NT>
>>
>> It goes on to describe many more ways that NT copied VMS:
>>
>> Kernel and Executive subsytem
>>
>> Interrupt handling
>>
>> I/O in general
>>
>> Scheduling
>>
>> And this:
>>
>> 'Conclusion
>>
>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>
>
> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
> with it.
>

$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".

On 2025-01-05 17:36, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-03 22:23, paranoia wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
>>>
>>> Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort.  Cutler used ~some~ similar
>>> CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems.  Otherwise there is
>>> little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.
>>>
>>> I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
>>> boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3.  You have to change the BIOS from SRM
>>> to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.
>>
>> You should do a little more research.
>
>
> Your use of "copy" is the problem.
>

In what way?

Did they copy the structures of VMS?

Yes. They did.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>
>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>> with it.
>
>$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".

For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
worth it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

In article <apfmnjd4fvfrn3afsdk3udg07dpskn2ls1@4ax.com>
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

This thread needs to die, as it's very repetitive and super boring.

On 2025-01-05 18:52, AlphaHeater wrote:
> In article <apfmnjd4fvfrn3afsdk3udg07dpskn2ls1@4ax.com>
> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This thread needs to die, as it's very repetitive and super boring.

So don't read it.