Mac built on Unix, Windows built on?
I picked up a copy of "Learning Unix For Windows" and I find it made me ask more questions then it gave me answers.
If Unix is the core that OS X is built on, what is Windows built on?
More importantly, how is Unix better then what Windows is running? I know Unix is powerful, but any more details?
If Unix is the core that OS X is built on, what is Windows built on?
More importantly, how is Unix better then what Windows is running? I know Unix is powerful, but any more details?
Comments
If Unix is the core that OS X is built on, what is Windows built on?
NT.
Unix is a very vague term these days, though. OS X's kernel is called XNU, and is a mesh of Mach (which is not Unix at all), BSD (which is Unix-like, but not UNIX®) and Apple-specific components such as IOKit (which aren't Unix at all either). On top of that lie many utilities from BSD and GNU (which is a clone of Unix), and on top of that, in turn, lies an almost entirely Apple-specific OS, with components such as Carbon, Core Foundation, Cocoa, and Aqua.
More importantly, how is Unix better then what Windows is running? I know Unix is powerful, but any more details?
I would never, ever use the term 'better' in context of software. The NT kernel in Windows has many strengths and weaknesses, just like the XNU kernel in Mac OS X does. I'd argue that OS X has a far more sophisticated virtual memory management, whereas Windows NT used to have a hugely more flexible file access control management (until OS X 10.4 Tiger came along), for example. There are specific areas where you can say this is better and that is better, but when it all comes together, you end up with operating systems that each have their good and bad attributes. The final call on what serves your needs more properly is to be made by an individual.
If you do wish to read up on OS X's architecture, which is quite unique, complex and versatile, http://kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ has a good overview, and http://www.osxbook.com/ from the same guy goes as deep as it gets. The author is now Google's Macintosh Manager and previously did system research for IBM; his book has been praised by many, including engineers from Microsoft and Google. The 1680 pages should be a hint that it's shockingly thorough.
I picked up a copy of "Learning Unix For Windows" and I find it made me ask more questions then it gave me answers.
If Unix is the core that OS X is built on, what is Windows built on?
Sand
I picked up a copy of "Learning Unix For Windows" and I find it made me ask more questions then it gave me answers.
If Unix is the core that OS X is built on, what is Windows built on?
More importantly, how is Unix better then what Windows is running? I know Unix is powerful, but any more details?
I heard Windows NT was built on (parts of the) DEC VMS operating system for their VAX machines, beeing the most successful multi-user minicomputer OS in the 1980ies, largely used at universities all over the world. By rumours of Digital Equipment people the name (WNT) was just a shift upward in the alphabeth of VMS, an analog to the shift downward of IBM to HAL in the famous movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrick in 1968. In the same way Bill Gates bought the DOS OS he managed to buy the design team of VMS to deliver a multi-user virtual memory OS and adapted the earlier Windows GUI for it. UNIX was built on the earlier Digital Equipment RSX OS on their PDP systems, VMS was much more sophisticated using cluster technology, allowing for active application and OS patching and upgrading or hardware exchange without demanding user logout. DEC was eventually bought by Compaq, which is now part of Hewlett Packard. Latest system version of VMS is 7.3.2 (2006). A recent hackers conference voted VMS as 'unhackable'
Bill was also in this case the smart commercial guy as in many other cases (like to get the license from Apple to use the windows metaphore in 1987 in return to the promise to continue the development of the MSOffice software for the Mac) You have to be that smart to get a 60 billion $$
As you all know WNT was (is) amazingly successful, though I never heard MS people bashing on Apple like many Apple fans (adepts) do on MS (even on this board). Only Amiga users are worse
The final call on what serves your needs more properly is to be made by an individual.
If you do wish to read up on OS X's architecture, which is quite unique, complex and versatile, http://kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ has a good overview, and http://www.osxbook.com/ from the same guy goes as deep as it gets. The author is now Google's Macintosh Manager and previously did system research for IBM; his book has been praised by many, including engineers from Microsoft and Google. The 1680 pages should be a hint that it's shockingly thorough.
Chucker,
Thanks much for your posts here and elsewhere (I always learn a lot from them). Also, many thanks for the reference to the Amit Singh article on kernelthread. It should be required reading (even if one only reads the final section "Conclusion: Why Mac OS?) for all client computer users, Mac, Windows or otherwise. Even though I'm not a developer, his clear, precise writing style allows me to follow the discussion rather easily (though a lot of wiki and net searching is required of course to look up definitions of developer terminology ).
Unix is a very vague term these days, though. OS X's kernel is called XNU, and is a mesh of Mach (which is not Unix at all), BSD (which is Unix-like, but not UNIX®) and Apple-specific components such as IOKit (which aren't Unix at all either). On top of that lie many utilities from BSD and GNU (which is a clone of Unix), and on top of that, in turn, lies an almost entirely Apple-specific OS, with components such as Carbon, Core Foundation, Cocoa, and Aqua.
Well, UNIX® is all about the interface, not the implementation, or more correctly it's actually all about the Benjamins.
A: A pile of shit
Even worse, the registry.
Zing! Awesome
Well, UNIX® is all about the interface, not the implementation,
I think you mean POSIX.
It's true OS X/UNU is not currently UNIX although Apple claims they are UNIX-based which is a bit of a political dancing around the topic.
It's silliness. BSD, Linux, GNU, whathaveyou ?*they're all Unix-like.
With 10.5 though Apple is planning on paying the fees and running through the Open Group's testing protocols to have OS X 10.5 certified as a true UNIX 03 system.
Which is only relevant for some enterprises living in the past. UNIX certification is relatively pointless.
That is a different thing than calling UNIX System __ an interface, which it most definitely is not. But even System 6 and System 7 have to conform to the UNIX® standard to retain the name UNIX. And since the UNIX® conformance doesn't care about how you implement a function, just that the function is available to be called in a standard UNIX® described interface and returns the appropriate UNIX® described result within defined side effect restrictions, the UNIX® conformance suite does nothing more than enforce an interface standard on the different versions of UNIX®.
Good for app portability and marketing, not much else. And yes I am being pedantic about those little ®s since they are really muddying the waters about what it means to actually be a UNIX.