Quick!! A bonus mark is at stake, what does the "NT" in Windows NT stand for??!?!

[PeeluckyDuckee]

This is for a bonus mark
Please lmk what it stands for, and the link to the Microsoft site to prove it, thx!!


Plucky

 

[Sully]

I believe it means "New Technology"

 

[RollHigh]

doh you beat me..

NT actually stands for Northern Telecom but Microsoft licensed it and in the Windows sense stands for New Technology.

 

[LocutusX]

The original members of the first Windows NT development team, many of them were ex-VAX engineers from Digital. They worked on the VAX VMS operating system. In fact, the "grandfather" of NT (Dave Cutler) was also one of the lead engineers on VAX VMS.

Windows NT --> WNT
VMS + increment each letter by 1 = WNT

wooo!!!

 

[bigrash]

cool...i always thought it was Network Technology, but guess i was wrong.

 

[vash]

NT == Not Tested

You could get that answer from so many *nix people.

vash

 

[flawedecision]

NT == Not Tested

You could get that answer from so many *nix people.



When did the OS industry turn into a forum of politics?

I've dealt and deal with both types of platforms and can assure your comment is void of fact and substance. From an econ perspective take a glance at the R&D numbers for some of these products.

I guess the nix people you refer to must know something that Microsoft and their Enterprise level partnerships are not aware of... I guess we must assume that the people putting millions and billions into enterprise agreements are not aware of the fact that the products their servers are running win2k/win2k adv server/win2k data center, etc. have not been tested.

edit: why would you run your systems with operating systems based on "Not Tested Technology".... ?

 

[EmMayEx]

I know that it originally stood for "New Technology" however when I boot up Win 2000 at work it displays a splash screen that says "Based on NT Technology".

If you expand NT to New Technology that means that Windows 2000 is based on "New Technology Technology"which strikes me as being repetative and redundant.

Max L.

 

[vash]

<< When did the OS industry turn into a forum of politics?
I've dealt and deal with both types of platforms and can assure your comment is void of fact and substance. From an econ perspective take a glance at the R&D numbers for some of these products.
I guess the nix people you refer to must know something that Microsoft and their Enterprise level partnerships are not aware of... I guess we must assume that the people putting millions and billions into enterprise agreements are not aware of the fact that the products their servers are running win2k/win2k adv server/win2k data center, etc. have not been tested.
edit: why would you run your systems with operating systems based on "Not Tested Technology".... ? >>

What a loud mouth, full of nothing but hot air.

Sheesh.

I was simply making a comment about NT before someone else would -- its a constant thing here, you must be new around here. I've run every MS operating system since DOS 5.0, including all the NT kernel cores (NT 3.51, NT4, Win2k and WinXP) and the NT kernel is solid.

Lastly, others have already answered the question appropriately, why did you have to come so hard on a simple joke? If you didn't get the joke, grow up and get a life.

vash

 

[Diffusion]

<<
I guess the nix people you refer to must know something that Microsoft and their Enterprise level partnerships are not aware of >>


You do realize that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting? Big machines tend to be Sun, SGI, IBM, etc., I mean, x86 machines top out at 8 processors normally, and 32 processors occasionally. SGI sells 1024 processor systems, Sun sells 107 processor systems, and IBM sells 32 processor systems, and they all sell processors with more then 2mb of cache per chip. If you want Ill look up this figure, but for BIG machines MS has approximatly 4% of the market.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< I was simply making a comment about NT before someone else would -- its a constant thing here, you must be new around here. >>


And you must be a troll. Does it serve any purpose to reply to a thread when you can offer nothing of substance??? In your case maybe NT stands for No Trolls. Do you wish to call me new??? I'll let in on a secret I was here way before the date under my avatar, October 1999 was when the Fusetalk forums were born here. Before that it was UBB and before that, there was this site on Geocities.....

"New Technology" is what I was always told but I often wondered about the redundamcy in the title screen as well.



<< You do realize that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting? >>


Hmmmm... Boeing, NASDAQ... I can think of some more as well.



<< If you want Ill look up this figure, but for BIG machines MS has approximatly 4% of the market. >>


I'd like you to back that up with a credible link for Enterprise setting figures. By the time you get to 32 processor machines you are much more likely to be expanding the Enterprise laterally than vertically. After all which is more fault tolerant 1 machine with 32 processors, or 2 with 16, 4 with 8, etc.

 

[vash]

<< And you must be a troll. Does it serve any purpose to reply to a thread when you can offer nothing of substance??? In your case maybe NT stands for No Trolls. Do you wish to call me new??? I'll let in on a secret I was here way before the date under my avatar, October 1999 was when the Fusetalk forums were born here. Before that it was UBB and before that, there was this site on Geocities...... >>

I didn't state you were new, I was stating that flawedecision was the one that was new. NT doesn't stand for No Trolls, it stands for New Technology, as the rest have stated. NT is a good product, but its still not as mature as the other *nix's out there that power places such as cdrom.com, yahoo.com. I run Win32, NT based kernels at home and have no problems with their stability. I was merely making a comical joke about what others would be saying.

If you didn't see what was posted as a joke, GROW UP.

vash

 

[Flatline]

Geez, everyone's so touchy
The truth of the matter is that in most cases the most efficent design for an enterprise level network is a heterogenous environment of Windows and 'nix machines. They can both be configured to do what they need to do extremely well, but they are good at different things. Very rarely do you see an internal network that is completely 'nix based.
Windows servers are best utilized in small and medium-sized networks in order to provide a high level of functionality with minimal administrative effort and in large networks to work as authentication servers in conjunction with 'nix file servers, print servers, and db servers (note: before Win2K I would NEVER have said that Windows servers could be an integral part of enterprise-level networks).
The combination of the two platforms allows for maximum functionality with minimum cost.

 

[bubba]

With the Code Red and Nmidia going around, I would say NT = Not Trustworthy!

 

[Xeno555]

Dont have a link, probably because not really public info.

NT was made to kill OS2 (OS2/Warp) which was the ONLY desktop network type software.

Hence: Network(ing) Terminal


NT

And geuss what, they succeded.


X

 

[Flatline]

Yeah, Yeah...just install the patches already!

 

[CQuinn]

[/b]News Flash!!![/b]

"NT" no longer stands for New Technology...

The New Technology moniker was adopted back in the mid to late 1980s, when
MS broke off development paths with IBM over the next version of OS/2.
IBM was continuing work on OS/2 version 2.0 (2.1) while MS was carrying over
to create OS/2 version 3. Later they changed the name to OS/2 NT
(for "New Technology"), and then again to Windows NT.

Note, AFAIK the NT logo was already there before Dave Cutler joined Microsoft.
(Edit: I was wrong, but it was still called NT OS/2 when he joined)

So the NT used to stand for New Technology... BUT!!!
FTC (Federal Trade Commission) regulations have recommended limits on the
length of time a product can be called "new". After a certain reasonable
amount of time, a product or technology is not new anymore.
(As best I can tell, its not against the law in itself, but would be
considered as part of a deceptive advertising campaign to have continued
using "new technology" to describe a 3-4 year old OS design.)

The limit on the "New Technology" trademark ran out for MS sometime
during the NT 4.0 lifecycle. Which was probably another reason for them
changing the name to Windows 2000 on the next release.

After that, MS changed the description to "based on NT technology" where
the NT doesn't really mean anything other than as a reminder of what OS
the later releases were based on.

So for the 2 bonus mark answer:

NT used to stand for "New Technology" as far as MS marketing was concerned.

NT now represents the OS release that the current versions were based upon.


See Also The Architects: First, Get the Spec Right

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

Woohoo, a bonus mark for me, thanks CQuinn!
LOL, don't you just feel it, there's so much love in the air

Based on what I've read from you guys, are you suggesting that Windows NT or Windows 2000 is a solution better suited for small-medium sized networks? In the city where I'm in, my teacher is a consultant, and he tells us that most businesses are still running on NT technology, a fair number of Novell Netware, and a few Unix'es.

Boeing is in the city too, not sure what they run though...

Thx for the interesting info fellas
Plucky

 

[compuwiz1]

NT=Never Trust!

Actually, the correct answer is in the first reply.

 

[flawedecision]

You do realize that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting? Big machines tend to be Sun, SGI, IBM, etc., I mean, x86 machines top out at 8 processors normally, and 32 processors occasionally. SGI sells 1024 processor systems, Sun sells 107 processor systems, and IBM sells 32 processor systems, and they all sell processors with more then 2mb of cache per chip. If you want Ill look up this figure, but for BIG machines MS has approximatly 4% of the market.



Sorry but enterprise level partnerships do not merely pertain to operating systems. Go have a conversation with Accenture if you think that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting.

If you care to point to statistical analysis which refers to 'big machines' I'd love to take a look. Right now I'm speaking from personal experience, and what I've seen with my own eyes.

 

[KentState]

<< You do realize that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting? Big machines tend to be Sun, SGI, IBM, etc., I mean, x86 machines top out at 8 processors normally, and 32 processors occasionally. SGI sells 1024 processor systems, Sun sells 107 processor systems, and IBM sells 32 processor systems, and they all sell processors with more then 2mb of cache per chip. If you want Ill look up this figure, but for BIG machines MS has approximatly 4% of the market. Sorry but enterprise level partnerships do not merely pertain to operating systems. Go have a conversation with Accenture if you think that MS products are almost never used in an enterprise setting. If you care to point to statistical analysis which refers to 'big machines' I'd love to take a look. Right now I'm speaking from personal experience, and what I've seen with my own eyes. >>



I would have to agree with your statement that MS is growing into the enterprise setting. I've worked with IBM's AS/400 line for awhile now and it seems that a lot of large corps are replacing them with servers running a version of a MS product. Two examples that come to mind are Anthem Inc. and Nordstrom's. Both previously ran a majority of their applications on either an AS/400 or AS/400 and HP3000 configuration. Recently both companies have done away with both of their "big machines" and have gone to a version of NT.

 

[Flatline]

Why don't we all just run VMWare on our "big machines" and use NT on our 'nix servers? (oh boy, the flames are rising...)

 

[Woodie]

Well, as the "Big Iron" guys tell us "Little Iron" guys....the really big stuff is run on IBM (OS/390)...

As far as "Enterprise" level...someone already said it right: large enterprises have so many different requirements that they almost all use a combination of main-frames, mini's, and x86 based servers. Prior to W2K, I would agree that WinNT was NOT enterprise scalable (and yes, the proof is that we had >40 NT domains, becuase it wouldn't scale.)

(OK, IBM isn't the only mainframe vendor, but they are the biggest!)

--Woodie

 

[Flatline]

My God...someone actually agreed with me on the heterogenous network!! And I thought that would start a flame war! I guess I should have given some of the 'nix flameboys a little more credit (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean guv'nor)
A comment stating that Windows could be useful slipped through the cracks without pissing anyone off!

 

[stash]

NT = Nice Try