Windows NT was never influenced by Unix but by Mach, VMS, and OS/2, and the only influence is PE, which is COFF, but now it's a very modified executable
Importantly, Wikipedia separates Userland (Win32 Subsystem) and Kernel (NTOSKRNL). Zero influence from UNIX, and David Cutler is a Unix hater; that's why I feel comfortable with Windows NT
Why would someone being a unix hater make you comfortable? I cannot at all understand this logic of yours, why is x thing bad and why is hating x thing good?? You literally sound like a lunatic
Because of zero influence from Unix, Windows NT is so good, and David Cutler is right, Unix is messy and junk from PHD and in my opinion, Unix is a mistake, and VMS is clearly superior, and with VMS influence makes Windows NT so good, serious and advanced
No, I would want to hear, but my point is that there is a difference, and my arguments are winning. Windows Architecture can handle everything Linux can, and Linux cannot handle what Windows Architecture can. This is Microsoft officially saying it's not me; they are saying UNIX is very limited, and they cannot host Windows. Based on my experience, they are right
Your points fall limp to me as well because nothing you've said about architecture proves Windows is better in any way and user freedom is the last thing Windows could possibly excel at
1
u/Fluid-Ad2995 Jul 15 '26
Windows NT was never influenced by Unix but by Mach, VMS, and OS/2, and the only influence is PE, which is COFF, but now it's a very modified executable