I tend to agree with FotNS. MS takes great pride in the fact that their platform is close source, so I doubt other companies would be entrusted with NT source. Of course, now that there was that little leak, at least a portion of Windows is in the public domain.
I tend to agree with FotNS. MS takes great pride in the fact that their platform is close source, so I doubt other companies would be entrusted with NT source. Of course, now that there was that little leak, at least a portion of Windows is in the public domain.
Certain other companies have had complete access to the full NT source. I don't know if this is true anymore, but it was as of NT4. Needless to say these were very trusted partners.
More likely on the porting of NT to RISC platforms is that the chip makers paid MS to do it for them - not that the chip makers ported it themselves. And MS was willing to do this and provide maintenance updates as long as the $ kept flowing.
I tend to agree with FotNS. MS takes great pride in the fact that their platform is close source, so I doubt other companies would be entrusted with NT source. Of course, now that there was that little leak, at least a portion of Windows is in the public domain.
while i don't think MS is completely clueless, I did say MS knows more than us, but marginally.
and quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that so many, seemingly intelligent people in this thread can honestly believe that IBM needs to "spill the beans" to MS to win the XBox2 contract?! MS engineers and product managers would get all the relevant info (that you and I can get from pdf's @ IBM.com) about the different cores, SOC designs, buses, etc. MS'd get assurances that IBM could produce X on X technology, and yes, get samples of custom parts. But, that's not an inside look at their f-ing roadmap! MS isn't going to be building multiple different versions, upgrading the processors every few months, and need to know how things will continue to evolve! This is a static design job, requiring MS and IBM to put together what's wanted/needed with what IBM can or can't do.
Amazing that you continue to argue this point. Just look at the math. let's say that MSFT manufactures (not sells) 5 Million XBox 2s in the first year - seems like a reasonable assumption - maybe a little too high or low. Let's then say that they pay $20 per chip. That is 100 Million Bucks in IBM's pocket. Do you seriously think that they are going to spend that kind of cash without knowing just a little more than what can be found on a RUMOR site? Moreover, what about a potential $100 Million deal do you think would make IBM not want to spill their guts?
That is crazy talk - especially when you add in the fact that MSFT probably also knows both the Intel and AMD roadmaps (B/C they make Windows in case you want to argue this point)
So, given the fact that they chose the PPC over intel, I would say that that is a ringing endorsement for the future of our beloved platform...
(ahem) Outside of all the speculation, does anyone know if the software is available separately? It should be possible to put it on a separate partition.
The PPC versions of NT are for CHRP or whatever the non-Apple Power PC reference platform was. It may run on some of the older clones...
More likely on the porting of NT to RISC platforms is that the chip makers paid MS to do it for them - not that the chip makers ported it themselves. And MS was willing to do this and provide maintenance updates as long as the $ kept flowing.
I know for a fact that DEC engineers saw the NT source, because they helped get it running and running well on the Alpha (and the NT kernel itself had DEC's fingerprints on it). I remember this because a DEC employee told us that those engineers considered it the worst code any of them had ever seen.
There was no CHRP version of NT. To boot NT on a RISC machine it needs to load the ARC boot loader.
Firmworks created a CHRP to ARC layer for Motorola?s never released StarMax 6000 which was demoed at the 1996 PC Expo.
The other critical piece that would be needed is the HAL for your system architecture. Since there was little similarity in PowerPC motherboard designs IBM and Motorola had to write a HAL for each system. But machines that were CHRP compliant should not have needed a unique abstraction layer and could have used a CHRP HAL, but I don?t think Microsoft ever released one. Writing the HALs would have been extent of the programming for NT outside of Microsoft for the most part.
Microsoft hired Dave Cutler, one of the chief architects of VMS at Digital Equipment Corporation (later purchased by Compaq, now part of Hewlett-Packard) to develop NT into a more capable operating system. Cutler had been developing a follow-on to VMS at DEC called Mica, and when DEC dropped the project he brought the expertise and some engineers with him to Microsoft. DEC also believed he brought Mica's code to Microsoft and sued. Microsoft eventually paid $150 million US and agreed to support DEC's Alpha CPU chip in NT
There is not a lot of information on the web about the PowerPC version of NT, but for those interested here is a site that has some good information on NT for IBM?s PowerPC machines. http://home1.gte.net/res008nh/nt/ppc/default.htm
Comments
Originally posted by Big Mac
I tend to agree with FotNS. MS takes great pride in the fact that their platform is close source, so I doubt other companies would be entrusted with NT source. Of course, now that there was that little leak, at least a portion of Windows is in the public domain.
Certain other companies have had complete access to the full NT source. I don't know if this is true anymore, but it was as of NT4. Needless to say these were very trusted partners.
More likely on the porting of NT to RISC platforms is that the chip makers paid MS to do it for them - not that the chip makers ported it themselves. And MS was willing to do this and provide maintenance updates as long as the $ kept flowing.
Originally posted by Big Mac
I tend to agree with FotNS. MS takes great pride in the fact that their platform is close source, so I doubt other companies would be entrusted with NT source. Of course, now that there was that little leak, at least a portion of Windows is in the public domain.
The leak of which you speak was from one of their trusted parties .
Originally posted by concentricity
well, thank you.
while i don't think MS is completely clueless, I did say MS knows more than us, but marginally.
and quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that so many, seemingly intelligent people in this thread can honestly believe that IBM needs to "spill the beans" to MS to win the XBox2 contract?! MS engineers and product managers would get all the relevant info (that you and I can get from pdf's @ IBM.com) about the different cores, SOC designs, buses, etc. MS'd get assurances that IBM could produce X on X technology, and yes, get samples of custom parts. But, that's not an inside look at their f-ing roadmap! MS isn't going to be building multiple different versions, upgrading the processors every few months, and need to know how things will continue to evolve! This is a static design job, requiring MS and IBM to put together what's wanted/needed with what IBM can or can't do.
Amazing that you continue to argue this point. Just look at the math. let's say that MSFT manufactures (not sells) 5 Million XBox 2s in the first year - seems like a reasonable assumption - maybe a little too high or low. Let's then say that they pay $20 per chip. That is 100 Million Bucks in IBM's pocket. Do you seriously think that they are going to spend that kind of cash without knowing just a little more than what can be found on a RUMOR site? Moreover, what about a potential $100 Million deal do you think would make IBM not want to spill their guts?
That is crazy talk - especially when you add in the fact that MSFT probably also knows both the Intel and AMD roadmaps (B/C they make Windows in case you want to argue this point)
So, given the fact that they chose the PPC over intel, I would say that that is a ringing endorsement for the future of our beloved platform...
The PPC versions of NT are for CHRP or whatever the non-Apple Power PC reference platform was. It may run on some of the older clones...
Originally posted by Faeylyn
More likely on the porting of NT to RISC platforms is that the chip makers paid MS to do it for them - not that the chip makers ported it themselves. And MS was willing to do this and provide maintenance updates as long as the $ kept flowing.
I know for a fact that DEC engineers saw the NT source, because they helped get it running and running well on the Alpha (and the NT kernel itself had DEC's fingerprints on it). I remember this because a DEC employee told us that those engineers considered it the worst code any of them had ever seen.
Firmworks created a CHRP to ARC layer for Motorola?s never released StarMax 6000 which was demoed at the 1996 PC Expo.
The other critical piece that would be needed is the HAL for your system architecture. Since there was little similarity in PowerPC motherboard designs IBM and Motorola had to write a HAL for each system. But machines that were CHRP compliant should not have needed a unique abstraction layer and could have used a CHRP HAL, but I don?t think Microsoft ever released one. Writing the HALs would have been extent of the programming for NT outside of Microsoft for the most part.
As for the DEC NT connection, that is a whole other story. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
Microsoft hired Dave Cutler, one of the chief architects of VMS at Digital Equipment Corporation (later purchased by Compaq, now part of Hewlett-Packard) to develop NT into a more capable operating system. Cutler had been developing a follow-on to VMS at DEC called Mica, and when DEC dropped the project he brought the expertise and some engineers with him to Microsoft. DEC also believed he brought Mica's code to Microsoft and sued. Microsoft eventually paid $150 million US and agreed to support DEC's Alpha CPU chip in NT
There is not a lot of information on the web about the PowerPC version of NT, but for those interested here is a site that has some good information on NT for IBM?s PowerPC machines. http://home1.gte.net/res008nh/nt/ppc/default.htm