Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 3rd Nov 2007 00:05 UTC, submitted by Kim Haverblad
Permalink for comment 282877
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
The original 16-bit OS/2 1.x was certainly a joint IBM and Microsoft venture, but later versions of OS/2 use a 32-bit kernel and completely new OO desktop written by IBM, and most of the rest of the code which came from the joint project with Microsoft was phased out by OS/2 Warp 4 in late 1996. I think even the HPFS code has been replaced, though Microsoft might still hold some IP rights related to that filesystem.
Windows NT was originally somewhat based on code from the joint OS/2 1.x project, but after Microsoft hired Dave Cutler and other folks from DEC, the Windows NT project was almost completely rearchitected, and the versions of Windows NT which actually reached the store shelves (Windows NT 3.1 in 1993 through Windows Vista) have very little in common with OS/2.
Using the two products makes the fundamental differences between the two rather obvious, and while some of their respective native API calls have some similarities, the underlying implementations are not at all similar.
NT 3.x and 4.x DID have a limited OS/2 VIO substytem, but that was a bolt-on just like its POSIX subsystem, and it was generally considered to be almost useless as a platform on which to run OS/2 software.