boot in Win NT mode

E

Eolake

Registered
If you hold down ctrl-option-cmd-spacebar when booting the machine on which OS X is installed, it starts up in Windows NT mode, and will run certain Windows apps. Word for instance is supported, but Excell is not, or at least it is very unstable.

It even looks very much like Windows NT, just not enough for anyone to get sued.

Eolake

ps: Just kidding.
 
As of DP3 (according to ArsTechnica), if you give OS X the "three-finger" salute (CTRL-ALT-DEL) at boot, it returns:<p>
THIS IS NOT DOS!<p>
lol :D
 
oh, man, you really had me going there.

I'm not in love with Windows (in fact I hate it) but there's an awful lot of software running with it out there -- some of it is worthwhile -- but Word and Excel are not in that set.

8)
 
Mach was designed to host other OSes just like the Classic environment.

In fact, the only reason BSD is in the core OS is for speed. It was the first OS hosted by Mach.

Why not Windows?
Why not BEOs or OS/2?
Why not PlayStation, for that matter?

So, we'll have Classic and BSD running on Mach with 1.0.

Cool.

Apple, can we have more, please?

Jeff Sz. :)
 
re: <i>some of it is worthwhile -- but Word and Excel are not in that set.</i>

heh, do I get to start the first war of zealotry at this forum ;) ???

Excel simply rocks. it is a spreadsheet program without peer. I don't care for Word, am reasonably pleased with Access, but for spreadsheet work, Excel is validly placed at the top of almost everyone's list who really needs the functions and customize-ability.

sorry 'bout the OT post,

neye
 
Well, I am a Mac zealot.

MicroSoft knows very little about making a good interface.

Word simply…sucks.

but…
however…
Excel is a dern-good little program. Anyone who want to be a MS bigot, can you name a better one?

I wish Apple would make something better, but they haven't.
 
Word and Excel already run on the Mac. That's not the point here.

I want to be able to run _other_ stuff on my OS X hardware. Stuff that does not have or has cancelled a Mac version...
o MATLAB
o our own software
o other scientific software

Until the Mac market share goes somewhere meaningful (10% ?, 20% ?), a lot of vendors won't look at it. They'd probably look at Linux first.

;)
 
Well, IMO with OS X out, Linux won't be an extremely viable solution. Simply because it is a niche market. I mean how many people (other than those who use it at work) prefer to use Linux at home (or at work in a non-server capacity)?? NOT MANY.

OS X has the power and stability of UNIX and it isn't even a pain in the but like Linux…
 
Linux is a niche market???
Many web servers are running Linux. An example: http://www.gibworld.co.uk.
Lots of people use Linux on their home machines, but those are mostly PC users. Most people who use Macs that I know don't even realize that you can install a non-Apple operating system on a Mac.
The fact of it is, that most web servers run some flavor of UNIX, not WinNT (which includes Win2000). And Apple isn't even in the running yet, but OS X could change that. Example: Yahoo runs on FreeBSD. Willow Creek CD-ROM (ftp.cdrom.com, http://www.cdrom.com), one of the oldest and most reliable FTP sites out there, runs on FreeBSD. Hell, several of the machines that were used to do the special fx for The Matrix were running FreeBSD.
 
Actually, what's really cool is that Microsoft's website (both corporate AND MSN) are both hosted on Unix machines! What's that all about!? If they're trying to get Windows to be used as a secure and viable server platform they need to have faith in themselves. Bastards.
 
<b>microsoft.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000</b>

Go check it out at netcraft.com

Oh did I mention this too:

<b>hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000</b>

hotmail...what a paltry little site :)

Oh check out who also runs their servers on windows 2000, no one you've heard of before I'm sure:

<b>The Nasdaq Stock Market, Hotbot, BigCharts, and Dell</b>

Why dont you think before you post stupid stuff.
 
Before you start telling my how to post and not post, know that I'm not some knob that says "Gee!" when I see colors on my screen. I've been in the industry for quite awhile. If I didn't know this from a reliable source, I wouldn't have posted it. That said, it's common knowledge (though, truthfully, I'm not sure how to do it) that you can change the headers to make it look like you're running whatever you want. My friend Yves works for MSN. He's a project manager for their customer service team. The entire customer service area of MSN (and Microsoft) runs on Unix servers. So do large portions of the rest of the Microsoft website. Which Unix, I'm not sure. If it'd make anyone feel better, I could find out. But does anyone care that much? I can't speak for Gates, but I know Yves and his crew think it's damn funny.
 
I think maybe the Unix machines to which you are reffering to are ones on their backend systems. But from all appartent outward signs and statistics, statistics used in professional reports, show that their frontend machines running webservers, etc.. are running on the windows 2000 platform and microsoft's IIS 5.0 servers.

The link you reffered to quotes facts from 1998. The article isn't about Windows 2000, its about Unix Vs. WinNT 4.0.

I quote from the netcraft site, sorry this doesn't have a date but it's reletively new (2000):

"Hotmail Windows 2000 migration completes without incident.
The migration of the http://www.hotmail.com front end from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 seems to be complete with all recent requests from the site served from Windows 2000 machines and no evidence of any FreeBSD/Apache machines remaining in the load balancing pool. Microsoft will be pleased with this as the migration was completed in less than a month, without any reports of service disruption, and the site has previously been a beacon for open source evangelism."

Sorry if I came off/are coming off like I'm a jerk, it happens sometimes. Please correct me if I am wrong but I need current/concrete facts.
 
You know you're stuff. After a quick email from Yves:
"The frontend of MSN, all that's actually served, is Win2000 now. All the customer and client databases are on Solaris machines. The interact well together. We've been using 2000 since June of this year solidly. We started experimenting in December of last year. The Solaris machines probably wont switch over, because our intranet here is HP-UX and Solaris. But if they ever do, I'm outta here!"
So you were right, I'm not affraid to admit when I'm wrong. My information was dated. It's all good, Phaedo!

Now has anyone figured out that Atari 800 thing yet? :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top