Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnlmorg | Hacker News Reader

You’ve linked to NT, not Win 3.x

They were entirely different OSs.

Edit: the previous poster has since completely rewritten this comment to talk about windows NT. they originally talked about Windows (without the NT) then linked to an NT wiki. Hence my reply.

@OP Poor show on your ninja edit.

View on HN

No, I linked to Windows NT 3.1. The history here is important. It supported DEC alpha, hence the post.

Except NT 3.1 is still NT and NT didn’t “invent” the 3.1 design. They modelled it after Windows 3.1 (though technically Windows 3.0) and named NT as NT 3.1 for brand familiarity.

So NT 3.1 != Windows 3.1

As you said “history here is important”.

I'm not sure what you think I was implying with my post? The history I was pointing out was Windows NT 3.1 supported the DEC alpha processor (3.1 was marketing and implied the UI was similar to windows 3.x, which it was). This was a connection between DEC and windows that I thought was interesting and not the subject of the post, but in some interesting ways ties the two together. DEC did many things for a very long time like make machines, operating systems and processors [1] and is likely good fodder for a top level HN post in its own right. I remember dreaming about running a DEC NT3.1 machine when I heard about it. I had a friend in the AF who showed me the install disks for NT 3.1, a double stack of 1.44mb 3.5" disks. It must have taken hours to install. Anyways, that is the linkage. Take a look. It is fun history.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation

I'm old enough to have lived it. :)

I put '[edit]' and new comments below that and didn't edit anything above, including the link. The post above the edit is all original. I'm sorry you have been confused through this.

With the greatest of respect, if you’d put “Windows NT 3.1” originally then I wouldn’t have commented. But you didn’t.

Anyway, I think we’re both plenty experienced on both platforms so I don’t see any need for us to argue over NT or not to NT.

I think NT is correct; NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who famously worked on VMS stuff before working for Microsoft. I think the poster was correct in posting NT.

No they’re not. The GUI design came from Windows 3.0. What NT do was take the design of that and the branding of Windows to help sell NT.

But NT 3.1 is a completely different OS to Windows 3.1.

They might look the same, but one has OS/2 heritage while the other has DOS heritage (to overly simplify their origins, but I’m in a rush this morning so can share more accurate details later if you wish).

Edit: the GP changed their comment. The original copy didn’t reference NT, it just said “Windows 3.1”. Hence my reply.

Even if the GUI design elements originated with Windows, I don’t think it’s incompetent to mention Windows NT when VMS comes up. Due to Cutler’s origins, a lot of people consider NT as the spiritual successor to VAX.

spiritual successor? how about "ghoulish horror" ;)

the worst example of "second system effect" i have ever heard of

To be fair, I actually think that the NT kernel is fine, and arguably better than Linux. It’s the rest of Windows that is terrible.

Fair point.

amusingly Motif and CDE were derived from HP attempts to copy Windows 2.x and the betas of Windows 3.0

not windows 3.1 -- windows 3.1 was popular! Windows before 3.1 was distinctly unpopular. It had basically no installed base. The only Windows 2.x applications I know of actually shipped an embedded Windows copy on the floppy disk.

HP was carefully tracking all the much less popular stuff Microsoft was doing in the late 80s because they thought this "WIMP" paradigm had staying powers, even if Microsoft was not exactly selling a lot of units

Reply on news.ycombinator.com