Tat Chan wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


BTW, the only way Microsoft will ever make a product that does *not*
suck, is if they buy out Dyson......................


Windows 2000 is/was a good OS ...



No, No, NT 3.5, that seemed to be the nearest they got to a OS that
didn't crash and burn. Then they got rid of Kutler, and decided to push


Kutler??? No experience with NT 3.5 (wasn't it 3.51?)

Yes, it was, sorry speeling, I should have said Cutler, as in Dave Cutler

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DaveCutler


the graphics driver into ring 0, and it all went to the wall again...


was that like integrating the graphics code (GDI) into the kernel level?

Yep, that was exactly what they did, MS, then started saying run servers
in VGA mode.


Anyway, NT has its roots in VMS, so you can say the OS has a good
"heritage" ...


See above, if you think VMS is good "heritage" :-)


Does depend on what you decide a "good OS" has to do, OS9 and Vertex
were IMHO both good OS's, but not much use for the man in the street
(unless the were running the trafic lights).

Well, I was more or less refering to the man in the street. Win2k is
good for what it does, fairly stable and isn't a resource hog.

OS9? You don't mean Bell Lab's Plan9, do you?

No the RTOS OS9

http://www.rtsi.com/

--
Nick