home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!udel!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-coco!nwnexus!Celestial.COM!ray
- From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
- Subject: Re: Windows NT
- Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
- Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 20:36:40 GMT
- Message-ID: <1993Jan03.203640.24282@Celestial.COM>
- References: <1992Dec30.181456.7768@elegant.com> <C03I3E.10C@world.std.com> <C04x4q.17E@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
- Lines: 28
-
- In <C04x4q.17E@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn) writes:
-
- >In article <C03I3E.10C@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
- >>rstory@elegant.com (Robert Story) writes:
- >>:
- >>: My understanding (which is very little, indeed) is only from press
- >>: reports. However, I thought that NT was only a single user system and
- >>: as such would only make use of the console. Ergo, why would one
- >>: require support for dumb terminals ???
- >>
- >>Well, no, it's not single user. NT seems (from my reading) to
- >>be quite capable of supporting remote logons.
-
- >That's odd. Everything I've heard on this topic says that NT
- >is a single-user, multi-tasking OS. Can you give references to
- >materials that say otherwise?
-
- A Micorsoft "evangalist" (sp?) that gave a talk at one of our meeting
- (Unix user group) stated that NT would be marketed first in the server
- market, but was indeed capable of multi-user. That feature would be
- marketed 9 months to a year after introduction. But, what the hell, its
- just a rewrite of UNIX so they won't have to pay UNIX royalties, so why
- shouldn't it be multi-user.
- --
- INTERNET: ray@Celestial.COM Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
- UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!ray 6641 East Mercer Way
- uunet!camco!ray Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
- The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
-