Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by flohofwoe 751 days ago
> Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS

AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side and for backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements ;)

> Absolutely cast-iron lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.

Not the parent, but it's at best a good urban legend and not much different from "Gary Kildall was not interested". Do you have any first-person accounts that paint a different picture?

1 comments

> AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT).

It had three parents: OS/2, DOS and VMS. However, MS could use code from 2 of them but not from VMS. I've blogged about this more than once:

https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/67492.html

https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/54464.html

> The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side

Nope. Not true, and you have the timeline backwards.

NT was released in 1993, 2 years before Win95, and only the 2nd version of NT, 3.5, supported VFAT long file names.

NT did not support Win95B's FAT32 until its 5th release, Windows 2000.

> backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements

No, I don't think so. NT could be installed on top of DOS, via the WINNT.EXE setup program. (Something I urged in OS/2 communities, but they didn't understand the need or usefulness.)

https://networkencyclopedia.com/winnt-exe/

NT could dual-boot with DOS, even in the same partition in early versions. It could also dual-boot with Win9x.

This level of interop was hugely important and useful and really helped the new OS gain adoption. It was not some reluctant bolt-on.

> a good urban legend

No, it isn't. It's a horrid calumny against a good and brilliant man.

> not much different from "Gary Kildall was not interested".

Also utter nonsense.

> Do you have any first-person accounts that paint a different picture?

TL;DR version.

Dr Kildall's wife, Barbara McEwen, was DR's lawyer. She negotiated with clients and suppliers, not the CEO who was a programmer.

IBM wanted an NDA which DR was unwilling to do. She said no. Remember DR was the industry giant in microcomputer OSes at this time, and IBM didn't have an offering at all.

Kildall was flying to visit an important client; this wasn't some accidental joyride.

This lie about Kildall literally drove him to drink and his early death. Stop repeating it. It's not funny or clever. It's an evil, vindictive lie.

Tom Rolander was the other passenger in the plane. Is his testimony good enough?

Listen to him describe the flight he was on.

https://youtu.be/bLVbSjDq0DE?si=Ig9KksWWiJG3KDFn&t=1025

A much longer interview:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/12/18/cassidy-theres-more-t...

Video interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VREZ6Zx_usc

Transcript:

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/201...

Well that's a lot more hard info than I was hoping for, thanks for taking the time!
Thanks.

The thing is, the computer industry is now old enough it has a lot of folklore and legend: stuff that "everyone knows" and repeats.

But many of the people involved are still alive and you can just ask them.

And there are some really nasty people in this industry -- such as Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison -- who tell lies about others and to others, and then some of those lies catch on and everyone repeats them.

These lies that people share destroy lives. Don't repeat stuff you heard. Just Google it. It's easy to find the truth.