From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: 01 Sep 92 18:16:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep1.082343.28146@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>So?  The differences between symmetric and asymmetric are largely
>philosophical.
>
>Unless you can show some hard evidence as to why symmetric is better.

     "Better?"  I don't think I can prove that - it's a nebulous
term.  I can comment on why I think symmetric multiprocessing is
more desirable - it can be used on any task, not just (in the
multiprocessing OS/2 case) network I/O.  A good OS can utilize
any number of processors to solve any task.
     Besides, it's just better.  So there.


>>     Windows NT has this "Hardware Abstraction Layer" that is supposed
>>to make driver-writing easy.  I haven't tried it, haven't really
>>looked at, so can't comment on how useful it really is.
>
>If it works, I'd be really impressed.  =) 

     If by "works" you mean "runs", it does.
     If by "works" you mean "makes driver-writing easy", I really
don't know.


>I'd like to see a easy-to-write printer driver.  Also, I've heard
>trouble with installing printer drivers under NT.

      Come now - it's not even in beta yet...


>Remember, in NT a printer is not a device when it comes to driver.
>Hmmmmm.  

       Error parsing sentence.
       Segmentation fault(core dumped)


>>>: 	Generalized Registry. (database as replacement for '.ini' files)
>>>???
>>      Well, it's essentially just what Brian said - a big database
>>that replaces all those .ini files.  It's kind of neat, but it's often
>>hard to remember what's in there.
>
>I ***REALLY*** like this idea.  .ini files are incredibly archaic.
>
>Again, I really hope you pull it off.   Now, anyone want to buy me
>330MB of disk space and a CD-ROM player so I can play with it?  
>=) 

      The registry works now, but as I said - it's a bit confusing.
And modifying it can be a real pain in the ass.  Just figuring
out which setting to modify can take a while.
      All in all, though, editing the registry is an administrator-
level task, and probably won't be done all that often.


>>      This is not strictly true.  Windows NT runs 16-bit Windows
>>and DOS apps in subsystems - when running a 16-bit Windows apps,
>>any time spent in API calls will be mapped to the appropriate
>>Win32 calls.  All the drivers can be fully 32 bit.
>
>Hmmm...the same way OS/2 does it.  How interesting. =)  Are you
>guys doing it via thunk?  Is there any other way to do it?

      Don't know about thunks - probably couldn't tell you if I
did.
      Is there any other way?  Almost certainly.  Are those other
ways better?  Possibly.


>Actually, I'm curious as to when Microsoft began work on C++.  If 
>they answer is nonconfidential and won't embarrass you too much. :)

     Don't know.


>>     It's been pretty reliable for me so far.  As you say, though,
>>believe it when you see it.  Always good advice.
>
>Wow.  Never thought I'd hear you say that.  *grin*

     Why not?  I've tried to be honest on this group...


>>     Strangely enough, FAT is faster than HPFS under Windows NT at
>>the moment.
>
>Now, that's **weird**.  You guys aren't running the 1.3 version of
>HPFS are ya?  =)

     I think the current caching schemes are optimized for FAT.

						-Phil


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy