From: adriene_nazaretian@qm.yale.edu (ALN - Go NY Giants!)
Subject: Re: RE: Win NT - what is it???
Nntp-Posting-Host: gorgon.cis.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University; New Haven, Connecticut   USA
Lines: 72

In article <16APR93.02170289@vax.clarku.edu>, rmohns@vax.clarku.edu says:
>
>In a previous article, alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) wrote:
>>Two-part question:
>> 
>>1)  What is Windows NT - a 'real' windows OS?
>> 
>>2)  This past weekend, a local 'hacker' radio show metioned a new product
>>    from Microsoft called 'Chicago' if I recall.  Anyone know what this is?
>> 
>>That is it -
>> 
>>Thanks a heap.
>> 
>>- Alan
>
>Windows NT is a giant Windows Operating System.  Unline Win3.1, it does not 
>run on top of DOS.  It is its own OS, with (Billy Gates assures us) true 
>multi-tasking/multithreading, meets DOD security specs, will run win3.1 
>programs as well as DOS programs, has multi-processor support, and is
>primarily a Server program.  It's overhead is too high for it to be
>economical for most users.

It also runs OS/2 character based apps and POSIX apps.  The DOS, 16bit
and 32 bit windows apps run in a windows 32 bit subsystem.

If you consider the fact that NT has:
 the Lanman redirectors,
 built in support for TCP/IP
 built in support for NETBEUI
 comes with TCP utils like ping and an ftp client, etc
 applications like schedule+ and a 32 bit version of msmail

the storage argument isnt an issue.

>        Speaking of overhead, it requires at least a 386 with 16 megs of RAM.  
>It iwll run with 12, but that's like running OS/2 2.0 with 4 megs.  And that's 
>just to run it.  Also, I have heard that the system files take up 30-50 Megs, 
>and it is recommended that your drive be a half gig!  The SKD is distributed 
>on CD-ROM.
>

I ran it on a 486 with 8MRAM and it did a ton of disk swapping, with a 19M
virtual memory paging file.  It functioned but it crawled.  (this was the OCT
build)

I upgraded the machine to 16M and the performance is good,
At that point I installed the March Build.  Consider they
are probably still working on the feature set, and havent done a lot of fine
tuning to the code yet.

>Chicogo is what I want to use.  It is, like NT, a true OS with thrue 
>multitasking and multithreading, but has much smaller hardware requirements, 
>and does not meet DOD security specs (but that's okay since it will probably 
>be more of a client OS).  there are a few otehr differences, but those are the 
>main ones.  There was an article about Chicogo in PC Week last August.
>        The Chicogo and NT development groups at Micro$oft are in intense 
>competition, so it is said.  However, I think a different relationship will 
>arise: NT will be the server (*N*etowrk *T*echonology), Chicogo will be the 
>client machine.  It is entirely possible for different OS's to work together, 
>partly because Chicogo is just a small NT (think of it that way, anyway).  
>(Novell Netware creates an OS on the server that is truly not DOS, so don't
>scorn the concept.)
>        Anyway, don't expect it soon.  Windows 4 and DOS 7 are supposed to be 
>released next year (read: see it in 95), so I expect that Chicogo won't be out 
>til '96.

I have little info on Chicago so I cant make a comparison.  Is it in Beta?  Is
there anyone out there who has tested both and cares to make a comparison?
Just my $0.02  

/ALN
