Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor)

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <oleh@vlinux.voxelvision.no>]

"Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> writes:

> >
> > > To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000
> > > kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel.
> >
> > Is it? I haven't noticed any huge differences between 2k and NT4.
> > There are some noticable cosmetic differences, but (with the exception
> > of plug-n-play) the underlying Win32 API and the kernel under that is
> > almost identical.
> >
> > Certianly, there is a huge difference between the NT kernel (used in
> > NT, 2k, and XP) and the Win9x series kernels. They are basicly 2
> > *very* different OS's (the former a full-featured modern OS, the
> > latter little better than an embedded OS with a GUI) that share a lot
> > of the same API's and are somewhat binary-compatable.
> >
> No, No, No. Then you didn't look close enough. Of course the old
> APIs of NT4 mostly stay stable, but under the hood there are a lot
> of differences in implementation that makes the huge difference between
> Win2K and the NT4 kernel. The whole domain system has been
> changed and Active Directory has been introduced. That makes large
> Domains much easier to manage. COM+ has been integrated seamlessly,
> giving you a world class AppServer functionality including distributed
> Transaction monitoring, reliable message queueing and queued components
> for free. You have IntelliMirror technology, encrypted filesystem etc. etc.
> The networking stack has been improved (giving you IPSec for example)
> or a much better DNS, WINS and DHCP implementation than before.
> And one could continue this list. Not to mention that the codebase has
> been significantly cleaned up. All that results in a much higher stability
> of
> Win2000 compared to NT4.
> 
> J�rgen

But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from
the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-(