Talk:Windows NT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Does the controversy concerning the minute different versions of NT Server (4.0) and NT Workstation (4.0) deserve to be brought up in this article? http://www.oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.240.92 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the origins of NT well enough to write even a good stub article. I simply neutralised the comments that existed before, and took out the BSoD reference entirely --Colin dellow

The first sentence is not even English. This article, from the point of view of the informed user needing more information, is largely useless. Needs to be edited to bring out the facts (release dates, versions, features, which parts of the technology have been carried into Win2K and XP) and remove most of the opinions, which help no one other than the writer. --BK


Contents

[edit] Microsoft vs IBM

There are a number of mistakes regarding the history of MS-Windows in this and related articles. First up NT, was NOT based on OS/2 v.3 which was released a few years after NT. Nor was OS/2 writen by Microsoft, it was a joint IBM/Microsoft project to produce a mature OS for the home PC market, just do a search for a famous video clip of Bill Gates in 1989 cooing over how OS/2 is going to be the OS of the 1990's. It was only after he saw the sales figures for a semi workable GUI environment that he realised selling vapour ware would be more profitable than a joint mature & working product which he'd have to share with IBM, who's engineering skills well deserved. To this end Mr Gates had his people do a universal text-processor change of the source code for OS/2 ver. 1.2 (it may have been 1.3, but I think it was 1.2) replacing the tag 'DOS' with 'WIN'; recompiled, and called that Windows-NT version 1.0 . This was the reason that NT at first 'could' run OS/2 programs, because they couldn't stop it from doing so for the first half dozen releases. You must remember OS/2 1.x was a 16 bit OS, IBM re-wrote from the ground up as a pure 32 bit OS for ver. 2.0 which had the Windows 3.0 'emulator'; which was easy as 90% of the Windows code was written by IBM code cutters under contract & that contract which gave IBM access rights was the reason that IBM also wrote bug-fixes for MS-Windows 3.0 & 3.1; however, Microsoft took IBM to court to prevent IBM from releasing the fixes & claiming IBM had no rights to any of the Windows code. The court case was bogus but MS kept in in the courts from 1992-1995 when it of course became meaningless.

Basicaly, Windows NT is the Microsoft version of OS/2.

MS-Windows95 on the other hand was a Desktop system mimicing the OS/2 Desktop system - complete with weaknesses as well as strengths- sitting on top of MS-Dos v.7 The modern Microsoft Windows is a Microsoft version of the OS/2 Desktop manager on top of a Microsoft version of OS/2. And OS/2 was a fine OS for its time, and for its market; but it nor anything based from it is NOT suitable for todays network environment.

I see no reason for editing the foregoing other than to fix the mis-spellings. The article is substantially correct in its analysis of Microsoft's game-plan. sjc
I'm no MS fan either, but I don't like the sneering tone in which this article is written. The analysis is indeed correct, but could be described in a somewhat more neutral way


IBM didn't "produce" OS/2; Microsoft did. It was released as Microsoft OS/2 1.0, a complete operating system, entirely produced by Microsoft. IBM bought it, improved upon it, and released it under their name later. My impression at the time was that MS used it as something of a "testbed" for how to write an OS, then pawned it off to IBM and started over with NT. Internally, most of the MS team who produced OS/2 were the same folks who produced NT (For example, the OS/2 component test team directly became the NT component test team, which was where I spent my brief employment at MS). --LDC


[edit] NT vs OS/2

As I recall it, it was a joint venture between the two of them. I'm sure each side would claim it did the lion's share. I recall that significant amounts of IBM code went into OS/2, including in particular the graphics system. There was plenty of disagreement, because IBM wanted it to fit into their SAA architecture, while Microsoft wanted to keep compatibility with the Win16 GDI. In any case, I know specifically that OS/2 versions 1.3 and 2.0 were released under both Microsoft and IBM brands. That simply could not have happened if IBM just bought it later. The schism happened after OS/2 2.0; IBM went on to release OS/2 3.0 and Microsoft released NT 3.0. That's why there was no NT 1.0 or 2.0

--Alan Millar

I'm sure you're right about IBM being more involved; I used Microsoft OS/2 1.0, but I didn't join MS until after the team had moved to NT, so I can't speak to the details in between. I can, however, state with some confidence that the reason the first release of NT was called "3.0" was to synchronize its version number with that of the currently-popular Windows 3.0. By the way, if you have an old copy of NT 3.1 lying around, you'll find the email addresses of the team, including "leecr", in the easter egg. --LDC

What do you mean by 'release of NT called 3.0'? AFAIK there wasn't any release of such OS, maybe something deeply internal and not seen by anyone out of MS. --tyomitch 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
NT3.1 was the first public release. I always believe that one reason for using the 3.1 term was the same reason that Windows for Workgroups took the number 3.11: to retain the the Netware client licenses, which were restricted to windows 3.1. I'd be hard pressed to find evidence for that though. SteveLoughran 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Although I don't have it direct from Cutler, I hardly knew him and he knew me even less, I am as certain as I can be that the VMS => WNT ploy was intentional. Cutler was fond of puns and word play and worked a number of jokes into RSX, where I worked with him. See Talk:RSX-11 for some examples that are verified out of my own experience and some indications as to his personality. He was a profane and sarcastic individual who felt unappreciated by DEC and was glad to go to Microsoft. It would be absolutely like him to rub it in. So no, the VMS=> WNT thing isn't verified, but I know it happened. Ortolan88 20:47 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

[edit] Discontinued software?

This article was added to Category:Discontinued Microsoft software this morning. However, is that really an accurate classification for NT?
On the one hand, Microsoft has not marketed new products in this line of software under the trademark "NT" since the release of Windows 2000. On the other hand, each release of Windows since that time has reported itself as, inter alia, "Windows NT 5.0" (in Windows 2000), "Windows NT 5.1" (in Windows XP) or the like, which suggests that Microsoft continues to use the appelation "NT" at least internally.
—Ryanaxp 14:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing version?

NT also has several different flavours not mentioned here, I think. I know that Terminal (Server) Edition also exists for NT 4.0. Advanced Server and Server exist in Windows 2000. Windows 2003 has at least Enterprise Edition. Jdstroy 03:07, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Why no mention of NT 4.5? Edit: for those who claim there's no such thing, Windows NT 4.5 Small Business Server and Windows NT 4.5 BackOffice Server.

OK, thats what I did, but you better comeback with some screenshots. :) --Noypi380 15:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Ars-Technica says that NT 4.5 is a designation for NT4 SP4. Searching Google Groups shows that this is indeed a widely-used name. They also say that build number is 1433. So what, should we mention this version in the article? --tyomitch 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's called "Windows NT Small Business Server 4.5" or "Windows Small Business Server 4.5", not "Windows NT 4.5". There is no Windows NT 4.5. AlistairMcMillan 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't "Windows NT Small Business Server 4.5" considered Windows NT? If it does, then it belongs to this article. --tyomitch 22:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Small Business Server is just a version of Windows that is sold as an integrated package with a bunch of other crap (Exchange etc). It isn't a new version of Windows. AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, but History of Microsoft Windows#Windows Server 2003 lists SBS as an edition of Windows Server 2003, together with the 4 editions mentioned in this article. 1) shouldn't the NT 4.5 SBS, be it an edition of NT4, be added to the list of NT4 editions? 2) shouldn't the edition lists of the two articles be merged, probably at History of Microsoft Windows, where I think it belongs more? 3) why then NT 4.5 SBS has a build number so strange, not matching any other NT release? tyomitch 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I now see at this Microsoft page that SBS 4.5 (that's what it's called) is in fact NT4 SP4 + various stuff. Now what is this version to be considered? An edition of NT4 or separate Microsoft product unrelated to NT? SBS doesn't have it's own article, so it has to reside somewhere in the Windows articles. Having build number 1433 is most likely a hoax. --tyomitch 00:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What part am I not explaining. They take a pre-existing version of Windows Server (originally Windows NT 4.0 Server, then Windows 2000 Server and now Windows Server 2003), then add on a bunch of programs (Exchange Server, Proxy Server, etc), stick them all in a box and sell them. It is not a separate version of Windows. Small Business Server is a separate product, not a version of Windows. All it has just now is a redirect Microsoft Small Business Server, please feel free to expand on that if you want. AlistairMcMillan 00:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. And what about redundant edition lists? (Again, SBS 2003 is listed as a Windows edition at History of Microsoft Windows –- should it be corrected there?) --tyomitch 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Damned if I know. That page is a mess. We are listing every single version of XP, even if the only difference is the inclusion of a single bundled app, but we don't list all the available versions of NT. AlistairMcMillan 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microkernel design?

Does anyone have a source for this...

Originally, they tried a microkernel design, but failed to create a working version that used a microkernel. They ended up going with a monolithic kernel that integrated more functions into the kernel.

This was added by User:216.119.235.214 over a month ago. [1] I'd love to know if this is true. AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone recently deleted the mention of Windows NT as an example operating system on the Mach Kernel page. I've seen no evidence that NT uses Mach, and at best only have seen comparisons and hints at inspiration from Mach. I'm deleting the mention of Mach from the "See also" section. --64.222.109.153 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is what version of NT

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is branded as Windows XP (NT 5.1), but based on Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2). Which NT version number does Windows XP Professional x64 Edition claim to be? --Pmsyyz 23:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

A person running it reported that it's 5.2.3790.2180 (fixed the article now)--tyomitch 23:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Longhorn/Vista

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&na=88&View=en-us&qu=longhorn Microsoft sites say Vista has replaced longhorn.71.28.243.246 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the article say otherwise? If not, what's the point of your comment? --tyomitch 21:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Vista has not been released yet (as of 21 February 2006) and is expected around the end of 2006 (although it could slip into 2007 - my opinion). The article has now been reverted the to reflect this again. Microsoft has info about the Vista beta [2]Imagine_B 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disk, not Disc

I reverted an anonymous edit that changed disk to disc. Looking at the wiktionary definition of disk, disc is the North American variant of disk; using this description it is best to keep the terminology consistent. There are roughly three occurances of disk so changing one of them to disc is not a good idea.

The other way to look at it, is in international English (according to wiktionary definition of disc) disc implies "optical disk", in which case hard drive space does not qualify to use disc. BigNate37 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows NT / The Single UNIX Specification / POSIX

Is it necessary to make the comparisons between UNIX and Windows NT? I realize that there is a great schism between the masses of Windows NT and UNIX users, but I don't feel that it would be appropriate to make the claims of:

  • "features comparable to UNIX"
  • "generally not compatible with UNIX in terms of programming APIs"

I'd like to point out that, up to Windows NT 5.0, there *is* a POSIX subsystem (posix.exe and pax.exe) deployed on a standard installation; thus, Windows NT 5.0 and earlier had built-in support for a UNIX platform. This doesn't really fit the description of "features comparable to UNIX," as it contains a UNIX platform. Windows NT's "subsystem" architecture was designed in a manner similar to the idea of "universes" on a UNIX system--it allowed a user to run programs in multiple platforms, including the Win32 subsystem (and 16-bit DOS/Win16 subsystem), the POSIX subsystem, and the OS2 subsystem.

In later versions of Windows NT (5.1, 5.2), the support for the POSIX subsystem was dropped; however, an add-on package from Interix (and now Microsoft) called "Windows Services for Unix" allows for the use of the POSIX subsystem on Windows NT 5.1 and Windows NT 5.2.

Although Windows NT 5.0 and earlier had support for the POSIX subsystem in a standard installation, it lacked the tools that went along with a standard UNIX install. (It's like having a Linux kernel, but no GNU!) The rest of the runtime environment was left in the Windows Services for Unix package.

I believe the second quote (above) is incorrect. SFU is "a POSIX.1-conforming system" [3]; thus, it has source compatibility (up to the POSIX.1 specification, see POSIX) with "UNIX."

Thoughts? Jdstroy 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows Posix != SFU. The Posix API was a peer subsystem for NT, alongside the OS/2 subsytem. It used features that are not exposed to the windows API, but were clearly in the NT kernel
  • Case sensitive filenames. You could even create two files of the same name and different case in a directory.
  • hierarchical process trees. When you kill a process, you kill its children.
  • fork(). There is no direct equivalent in the Win32 API.

Its purpose was to have a complete implementation of Posix that was absolutely no use to code against, which was achieved by not offering any network API, no graphics API, or anything other than a command line. Why do it? So people purchasing NT boxes on government deals could check off the "Posix compliant" box, which was often a requirement.

Services for Unix are services that let windows integrate with linux, and vice-versa. It includes things like an NFS client and server. It is not a unix or posix API. The closest there is the cygwin API, which runs on top of Win32, bridging over to that API to access everything posix left out. It does, however, lack access to those features that are only done properly in the real Posix subsystem, like fork().

SteveLoughran 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Since increases in processor performance, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are actually the latest versions of Windows NT, though they are not branded as such for marketing purposes.

How does the fact that Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are not branded as NT follow from the fact that CPUs are now faster?

MSTCrow 02:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
changed. SchmuckyTheCat 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NT on Alpha

"Released versions of NT for Alpha were 32-bit only"

This doesn't really make sense and I don't think it is even possible. The Alpha is purely a 64-bit architecture. --Afed 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

NT on Alpha supported the same 32-bit Win32 API and 32-bit addressing as the x86, MIPS and PowerPC ports of NT; although early 64-bit NT development was done on the Alpha platform, this was never productized. See Compaq's Alpha NT EOL letter which explicitly mentions 32- and 64-bit NT. OpenVMS Alpha was also 32-bit until v7.0. Letdorf 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Indeed. The shipped versions of NT for Alpha were pure 32-bit operating systems and supported only 32-bit applications. Same for the first versions of VMS for Alpha, for that matter.

It's true that the chip has no 32-bit mode. This is handled through what amounts to sign extension: Any memory reference on an Alpha has to be done by loading the pointer into a register. And any code compiled for 32-bit Alpha, when loading a pointer into a register, treats it as a signed number, copying bit 31 of the pointer into bits 32-63! Thus the 32-bit OSs on the Alpha populate the very first 2 GiB and the very last 2 Gib of the 64-bit address space, in a manner very similar to the 48-bit "canonical" virtual addresses on X64.

However, unlike 32-bit mode on e.g. X64, all 64 bits of the Alpha's GPRs (and all of the GPRs, for that matter) were available for "large integer" calculations in this "32 bit" environment!

MS released 32-bit NT for Alpha through NT version 4, and shipped some 32-bit Alpha beta versions of Win2K. This continued after CPQ dropped support on NT for Alpha, but with no intention on MS's part of shipping the code. It was done for two reasons: 1) There was Alpha hardware but no Itanium hardware; and 2) they wanted to maintain a code base for more than one processor architecture, a practice that made the (much later) X64 port much easier. But no 64-bit NT code was ever shipped, even in beta form. (I assure you that if it had been, I'd be running a copy!) I imagine that now that they have three architectures to support the Alpha branches have not seen further development. (the above shamelessly plagiarized from my own text on the talk page of Architecture of Windows NT ) Jeh (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does "to complement workstation versions of Windows" mean?

The article says:

It was originally designed to be a powerful high-level language-based processor-independent multiprocessing multiuser operating system with features comparable to Unix to complement workstation versions of Windows that were based on MS-DOS until 2001.

What does "to complement workstation versions of Windows that were based on MS-DOS until 2001" mean here?  I'm not sure I'd call the DOS-based versions of Windows "workstation versions" - NT was better suited to "workstations" than the DOS-based versions.  (The workstation article speaks of UNIX, but that's arguably an error; machines used as scientific and engineering workstations often run NT.)

I'd be inclined to say that NT was originally mainly a workstation and server version of Windows, complementing the DOS-based lower-end consumer and business desktop versions of Windows.  It's now replaced the DOS-based versions in the latter market. Guy Harris 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NT confusion

Aha, so 'NT' is expanded to 'New Technology' for marketing purposes. And also for marketing purposes Windows 2000 had the slogan 'Built on NT technology.' So this expands to 'Built on New Technology technology.' This must be a joke, right? iNic 02:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while I was typing in my PIN number at the ATM machine a few days ago.
(You're not expecting something done for marketing purposes to make logical sense, are you?) Guy Harris 03:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I do expect marketing to make logical sense. If the marketing doesn't make logical sense why would their products make logical sense? For example, marketing for New Age products doesn't make logical sense—but neither do their products. So that is fine with me. But maybe MS products doesn't make logical sense either? In that case I will rest my case. (BTW, I've never heard anything but PIN code, never PIN number.) iNic 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the marketing doesn't make logical sense why would their products make logical sense? Becuase they're two totally different things, perhaps? What a marketer has to say about a product has absolutely no bearing on the real, actual product itself. The job of a marketer is to do market research, find out what the "hot issues" are, what the latest techniques in wording, format, and style are, and apply those things to their work. -/- Warren 04:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NT is not about New Technology, but about a HAL9000 like joke... If you take Windows NT, remove the "indows" you will have WNT, and if you do a ROT-1 you will get "VMS" (it's much like "HAL" in "2001: A Space Odyssey", if you to a ROT1 you will get "IBM") - Godzil --212.157.49.189 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The NT repetitive thing is outlined in this article for any of you out there who want to read about it. Emprovision (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] processor-independent or not?

Like Unix, NT was written in C, a high level language. It can be recompiled to run on other processor systems, at the expense of larger and slower code.

Two problems with this statement: first, what's the basis of the comparison? "Other", "larger", "slower" compared to... Intel x86? Intel i860? MIPS R4000?

More important: A priori there's no reason to believe the claim that recompiling on another plaform gives larger and slower code compared to the original. Without a reference and clarification, this statement should be removed. Bhudson 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


I suspect that sentence was supposed to mean that code written in C and compiled to a particular processor's machine code is larger and slower than code written natively in assembler language for that processor. Part of the problem is the "it can be recompiled to run on other processor systems" clause; it would probably be better stated as "it can be compiled to run on more than one type of processor", or something such as that. In addition, the two clauses should probably be separated; it's not the recompiling that adds the expense, it's writing it in a higher-level language (although a C compiler can probably outperform assembler-language programmers with lesser skills).
In addition, NT's greater code size, and longer code paths, are probably more due to NT being more offering a lot more capabilities than traditional Windows than due to it being written in C. Guy Harris 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
C is slower than assembly, that was used before for large parts of win 3.1 and dos. When porting NT to ALPHA it was boasted (sorry, no ref) that a large of the OS just ran after a compile on the new platform. THis flexibilty would have never beeen possible with assembly, but C is slower than assembly (at the time of the release of window NT 3.5 this was even more true than today) :Leuk he 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering (I could be wrong), but wasn't NT written in C++? Emprovision (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WinME came out before NT5

Alistair: WinME was a bastard operating system that was released in mid-1999, because MS could not get NT5 out the door in time for the Christmas 1999 season. NT5, rechristened Windows 2000 at the last minute by the marketroids, was released in a big coast-to-coast bash featuring Carlos Santana in mid-February 2000.

By the way, I was a beta tester for both the x86 and AlphaNT versions of Win2k... In fact, I still run RC2 (build 2128) on my DEC AlphaPC 164SX. Dan Schwartz Discpad 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Why did Microsoft announce the release in September 2000, if it came out in 1999? http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2000/sept00/availabilitypr.mspx AlistairMcMillan 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The press release is correct. I remember the news spots about 2000 not being for home users, etc, etc, and then the big hullabaloo a few months later about the "long anticipated" (and highly disappointing) release of ME. -amp_man 26 June 2007

[edit] Windows Home Server.

The article says Home Server will be NT 5.2. If there is a source to this claim please post here if not I will change it to:

NT Ver. Marketing Name Editions Release Date RTM Build
Unknown Windows Home Server Unknown 2007 (expected) Unknown

Chetblong 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows Home Server is a specialized build of Windows Server 2003, which is where 5.2 comes from, but screenshots like this one point to it being 6.0. Hard to say one way or the other without something more reliable. -/- Warren 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that does looks a lot like Windows Vista. I'm thinking it's going to be somthing in the NT 6.0+ range, but since there is no info I won't put that on the article. I'll wait 5 days and see if any source comes up if not I'll change it to Unknown.--Chetblong 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Vista because that's a screenshot of the client software, not of the server itself. :) -/- Warren 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Unknown. -- :) Chetblong 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i imagine it will be listed as '6.0'.. vista is also based on server2003, so it should be 5.2 (or 5.3?) but i suppose for marketing/effect they made it 6.0, in which case, so will home server i'd guess.~blab
Windows Vista is 6.0 because of the major improvments over 5.2. Windows Home Server does not have these. Josh 15:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fat is faster than NTFS

[all nt <vista can be installed to fat..] "at the expense of speed and security" no, fat is faster than NTFS for normal use on all but the very largest drives.~blab

[edit] Hardware requirements

The Hardware requirements section doesn't mention year difrences between the respective operating systems, something I feel may make it be unbiased against Microsoft for the percieved software bloat (noted, they rely less on application optimization and more on Moore's Law in order to get speed increases). If the years were listed in the table, perhaps it would be more effective at showing the data? - 68.228.56.158 19:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stable version?

Which is the most stable NT version? I know the kernel is refined all along the way, and NT 5 (Windows 2000) included a major architecture redesign. However, what about the whole system's buglessness and stability? In Yahoo! answers one said it was Windows 2000 that was the most stable version. I myself felt that too (patched at least up to year 2004). In my experience XP is also stable, however with some strange user mode hang-up situations: when switching users, logging off, etc. --211.167.159.70 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

-the server builds are the most stable IMHO. Server 2000 or 2003 have never crashed for me under general use, unlike XP and 2000 Workstation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Releases

Release list should include Home Server and processor type for all releases. Helpsloose 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C vs. ASM bullocs

NT was written in C, a mid-level language. This means that it can be compiled to run on several processor systems; however, the code produced by the compiler is larger and slower than assembler code written for a particular processor[citation needed]. For this reason, NT was not favored initially for use with slower processors with less memory.

As a CS engineering student, I can almost certainly say this is wrong. Code produced by a compiler is not inherently slower, and it will CERTAINLY not be the reason why a certain OS cannot be used for a certain machine. Heck, Linux avoids ASM code where slightly possible, only very lowlevel function that cannot be described in C will be programmed in ASM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.149 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XP 64 bit editions

What do you think of the table now? I confess I'd forgotten completely about XP 64-bit Ver 2003! (and MS did too, very soon after...) I have to run out now, but later I'll put in a link to that press release.

[edit] The table, with processor architectures added

Do you think the supported processor architectures should perhaps have a column of their own? This might mean a few more new rows, but it's arguably useful to have it in the table. Jeh (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How's this? /Sandbox/Windows NT processor architecture table Jeh (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Letdorf (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC).
Looks good, although I don't see the point in specifying the service pack. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In those cases the indicated arch was dependent on the SP. In particular, x64 on Server 2k3 only appeared with 2K3 SP1. XP's x64 was actually 2k3 SP1 also. Jeh (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 7 kernel version

Do we even have a source for this? If not, it should be removed. I doubt Windows 7 will be NT 6.1, especially considering it's Windows 7, which comes after Windows NT 6/Vista. 99.149.127.80 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The one Windows 7 build outside Microsoft has the version number 6.1. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The final version number is not known; 6.1 is just the current kernel version. — Wenli (reply here) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox kernel

I think this source is certainly more reliable than this one. Accordingly, if no one has any objections, the Xbox line should be removed. Or at least reworded so that it says the Xbox OS is derived from the Win32 APIs but built from the ground up. - xpclient Talk 11:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's much better to trust Microsoft (who made the Xbox) rather than another source. I've boldly changed it. — Wenli (reply here) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)