From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.nt
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:31:37 GMT
Keywords: Microsoft Windows NT Win32

> In article <917@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>> It is not a derivative except in that MSWin was the ancestor of the
>> user interface.  The OS itself is entirely different, as is the
>> programming API.  You may as well say that MS-Windows is a derivative
>> of MS-DOS, because Windows runs on top of DOS.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> The programming API isn't all that different; it's just 32-bit versions of the
> Windows API. Just ask Microsoft, who's busy claiming it's easy to port apps
> from Windows to NT with just a recompile.

Fascinating ... I find myself agreeing with Jay again!

While the internals (especially the kernel) of Windows NT are indeed
completely different from Windows for DOS (fot he lack of a better name),
that is irrelevant for 99% of the discussion in Windows-type groups.  And
as Jay points out, Windows NT's Win32 API is a superset of the older Win16
API (the POSIX and OS/2 1.x APIs are, realistically, add-ons; Win32 *is*
the primary API).  And, yes, Windows apps port to NT *very* quickly.

So, let us examine briefly why Windows NT discussions do or don't belong 
with Windows, going group-by-group.

.advocacy
	Should we argue for/against Windows NT separately from Windows for
	DOS?  I think not.

.apps
	The applications for Windows NT will have a great amount of overlap
	with Windows for DOS apps, due to the ease of porting.  Should Ami
	Pro 4.0 for Windows NT be discussed in a separate group from Ami Pro
	4.0 for Windows for DOS?  Certainly, there will be (and are) NT-
	specific apps, but there will be countless ports from Win16.  Not
	to mention running Win16 apps directly on NT.

.misc
	As the .misc group generally covers *using* Windows, this group
	would be mostly concerned about user interface issues.  And NT's
	user interface *is* the same as Windows 3.1's user interface.  The
	same Program Manager, File Manager, Notepad, and Media Player.  Is
	it worth splintering that discussions for logins and a couple of
	new Control Panel gizmos?

.setup
	Now, there are lots of differences here.  No DOS, filesystems,
	system requirements, tuning, logins, security.  Makes sense to
	have a separate group here.

.programmer.win32
	Yes, it's already a separate group.  And so it should be.  But the
	existence of Win32s (allowing Win32 apps to run on Windows 3.1 for
	DOS) would bring Windows for DOS issues into a separate NT group.

.programmer.posix
	This is the only other NT subsystem that isn't an emulation of some-
	thing else.  Right now the POSIX traffic in .programmer.win32 isn't
	heavy, but there is nothing preventing the creation of a separate
	parallel group -- and does anyone *know* that Microsoft's upcoming
	Chicago (32-bit DOS and Windows) won't include POSIX as well?

> The issues relating to the OS itself are different enough to warrant a new
> group. The issues relating to everything else are similar enough to MS
> Windows to warrant placement in the Windows hierarchy. 

Right.  When we designed the comp.os.ms-windows hierarchy, NT's arrival was
well known, and was taken into consideration.  As I reasoned above, NT is
another member of the Windows family (although with different underpinnings)
and fits right in in the Windows groups.

>> I vote for comp.os.windows-nt ... separate but equal.

> Ah. Just like rec.arts.manga.

Right.  And sci.aquaria, rec.aquaria and alt.aquaria.  I would foresee, at
this point, adding something such as:

	comp.os.ms-windows.nt.setup
    or
	comp.os.ms-windows.setup.nt

At most I could foresee an additional .misc group, but I will certainly vote
NO on splitting the Windows hierarchy into two.

[ Based on 3+ years of Windows development experience, having creating comp.-]
[ binaries.os2, comp.windows.ms.programmer, comp.os.ms-windows.*, and comp.- ]
[ binaries.ms-windows -- and maintaining the Windows FAQs as well...         ]

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]