This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Architecture of Windows NT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Architecture of Windows NT is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 19, 2007. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note: One should avoid excessive duplication between this article and other related articles such as Windows 2000, Windows XP.
Win2k (and all versions of windows AFAIK) are NOT microkernel based operating systems. According to Windows Internals 4th ed: "Windows isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels, where the principal operating system components ... run as separate processes in their own private address space". Windows Internals is written by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon (and considered to be authoritative). I'm going to try to reword the article, and perhaps expand on the issue at a later time. Consider the fact that the filesystem and much of GDI runs in kernel-mode. Timbatron 17:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the kernel mode take up 3 privilege levels of the μp? = Nichalp ( Talk)= 13:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that this article is moved to Architecture of Windows NT, as it applies equally well to NT and XP as to 2000 and Windows NT is often used to refer to any one of NT/2K/XP. -- R.Koot 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I second that -- in common usage, "NT" refers to the whole family from NT 3.1 through Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003. Similarly, 9x usually refers to non-NT releases of Windows -- Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME.
As for the privilege level question, NT uses only two privileges today -- user mode and kernel mode. On the x86 family of processors, those modes use code privilege level (sometimes called "ring") 3 and CPL 0 respectively.
I think there is a big problem with the new name "Architecture of Windows NT". It is factually incorrect, due to the whole line being discussed, and worse than that in software terms, it sounds obsolete. The discussion above did *not* reach consensus, and I like the others have no easy answer: Bad names:
Luckily, now that W98 will be is unsupported 2007 Q3 2006, that leaves the obvious:
Support Widefox 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Widefox: How about "Architecture of NT-based operating systems"? I'd really prefer to keep the "Aspect of subject" style of naming we've been using in most other Microsoft articles. -/- Warren 05:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth while mentioning ReactOS as it is attempting to reimplement the NT architecture.
But it's not NT. That's like mentioning linux in a BSD article.
Freeeekyyy (
talk)
20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On November 16, 2006 Microsft announced that there was an vulnerability in the workstation service and that exploit code had been created to attack vulnerable machines. [1] - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
References
See [1]. I understand that different drivers would be needed for ACPI or non-ACPI systems, but why is it so fundamental that they need a different HAL? Grouse 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As irrelevant and outdated:
Windows 2000 was designed to support the 64-bit DEC Alpha. After Compaq announced they would discontinue support of the processor, Microsoft stopped releasing tests build of Windows 2000 for AXP to the public, stopping with beta 3. Development of Windows on the Alpha continued internally in order to continue to have a 64-bit architecture development model ready until the wider availability of the Intel Itanium IA-64 architecture. The HAL now only supports hardware that is compatible with the Intel x86 architecture.
Preserved here because the information is factual and could be used elsewhere -- KJK::Hyperion 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits introduce phrases like "blah-blah-blah is a kludge which...." This is clearly POV. You may be right ... but the article needs to be unbiased, balanced, and without any sermonizing or judgement. Please have a cuppa tea and find more neutral ways to describe the details. If you can describe what's good and bad about the design, the user can draw his/her own conclusions. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The current structure isn't that great. The division between kernel and user mode components feels very artificial to me, as several kernel-mode components depend (for "everyday use") from user-mode components, and certain subsystems (like Win32) are divided between user mode and kernel mode more out of practical concerns (read: security) than by design. Also, Win32 has its own, parallel architecture, and the rest of the system can and does live fine without it.
In general, the article doesn't do justice to Windows NT's unique architecture and philosophy - no mention of features, like callbacks, that would make UNIX-heads' hair curl, turn gray and then fall. The article fails to bite.
So I will, sooner or later, reorganize it in a better structure, that makes the article less about "architecture" (actually more than it is now) and more about "philosophy":
-- KJK::Hyperion 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems sorely lacking in citations. Maybe some of the new eyes from it being featured will be able to give it a hand? -- Falcorian (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoever added those citation tags seems to have gone a little over the top. There are some statements are are so well accepted that to cite them is fussy to say the least. For instance: "The Windows NT hardware abstraction layer, or HAL, is a layer between the physical hardware of the computer and the rest of the operating system. It was designed to hide differences in hardware and therefore provide a consistent platform on which the kernel is run. [citation needed]" This is the very definition of a hardware abstraction layer - if it needs to be cited then it should be done so in the HAL article, not here. Can I suggest some of the more obvious requests for citation be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straussian ( talk • contribs).
While I can't speak to exactly which statements need citation, the article as it is now is ugly and messy. It is not possible that every sentence requires citation. I'd strongly suggest reverting to eliminate ALL of the "citation needed" tags; then, use this page to indicate just a few statements at a time that people feel really require specific evidence. Moishe Rosenbaum 02:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moishe, I didn't tag every sentence; only those I felt needed citations. The CN tag is intended to be a helpful way of enabling editors to see which statements need sourcing. It may make the article look ugly temporarily, but the end result is a much improved article. But, that said, I'm happy to adopt the "few sentences at a time" approach if others would prefer that. As I said above, if there are specific statements which people feel are so obvious that they do not need citing, that's fine, let's discuss and agree them here. One word of caution though, WP:V states that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to add material, not with those wishing to see it referenced. I've re-inserted the first 15 tags - if that's too many we can always take this in even smaller chunks - hopefully we can cope with 15 at a time though - let's do those first and then move on from there. SP-KP 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the well deserved FA status. I don't understand what appears to be excessive capitalization (title case) of common nouns. The fact that a common noun has an all caps acronym does not elevate the common noun to title case. Capitalization is justified for a registered trademark (in which case a registered trademark symbol should be added), but not otherwise. I am referring to terms like cache controller, memory manager, local procedure call, and many more. Am I missing something here? I don't want to go hacking away at an FA (I'm not that WP:BOLD), but I don't see a justification for this. If Microsoft capitalizes these terms in its own literature, that is not justification. Could someone please explain? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
At the top of the Executive paragraph, the following comment appears:
<! -- TODO: WMI, DBGK -- >
It seems that this article is FA now, but these things aren't mentioned. At some point, some editors felt that these two things ( Windows Management Instrumentation and Kernel User-Mode Debugging Support) should be discussed, but it seems that nobody ever got around to writing about them. Was this taken into account during the FA process? Perhaps these things need to be edited in anyway? After-all, these two things are part of the kernel. —msikma ( user, talk) 08:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Who was bored enough to write this? 81.153.125.209 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with this article please correct the lead ? WP:LEAD:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Start of article is also incorrect in saying Microsoft only released Windows versions supporting 64-bit processors starting with Windows XP. What about NT on the Alpha (a 64-bit-only chip)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.205.42 ( talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sparseness of references in this article; this aspect seems out of line with the article's featured status (although other aspects of the article all seem good). The date it was promoted to FA status probably provides the explanation - the standards for referencing were much looser two years ago than they are now. I plan to nominate this at FAR soon (the article is currently ineligible as it featured in the main page recently). The purpose of this note is to gives editors some advance warning, to seek views on which sections are most in need of referencing, and to encourage suggestions on appropriate references. SP-KP 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is now listed at Featured Article Review, with the aim of tackling the problem that it is sparsely referenced. SP-KP 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has far more problems than simply a lack of references.
I'll start with the user mode section:
"The user mode is made up of subsystems which can pass I/O requests to the appropriate kernel mode drivers via the I/O manager (which exists in kernel mode).[citation needed] Two subsystems make up the user mode layer of Windows NT: the Environment subsystem and the Integral subsystem."
Actually user mode is made up of a number of executables running in processes, plus various DLLs supplied by the system that are mapped into those processes. These components can be roughly divided into five categories:
1. System support processes such as those running smss.exe, winlogon.exe, services.exe, lsass.exe (ignore the "idle" and "system" processes; these are kernel mode components, although "system" does have some user mode address space in use)
2. service processes (similar to Unix daemons)
3. environment subsystem processes, and corresponding DLLs, which implement and export each subsystem's API set. Usually there is just one environment subsystem running (win32, represented by csrss.exe and various xxx32.dll's). A posix subsystem is available as a free download from MS. The OS/2 subsystem was dropped early in the Win2K timeframe.
4. Various ordinary user mode executables like userinit.exe and explorer.exe, required to implement the user's "shell" process
5. ntdll.dll, which exposes the native API to user mode
I don't know what is meant by "subsystems which can pass I/O requests to the appropriate kernel mode drivers via the I/O manager". I/O requests can be initiated by calling native APIs directly with no help from any "subsystems" whatsoever, environment subsystems or otherwise, even from a Win32 app. What does this qualification mean? ANY process in user mode can send I/O requests! (assuming it passes permissions checks to gain access to the intended file or device) But they don't talk to the I/O manager (IoXxx routines) directly. They can't, as no I/O manager routines are exposed for user mode call.
Which brings us to...
"The integral subsystem looks after operating system specific functions on behalf of the environment subsystem.[citation needed] It consists of a security subsystem, a workstation service and a server service. The security subsystem deals with security tokens, grants or denies access to user accounts based on resource permissions, handles login requests and initiates login authentication, and determines which system resources need to be audited by Windows NT.[citation needed] It also looks after Active Directory.[citation needed] The workstation service is an API to the network redirector, which provides the computer access to the network.[citation needed] The server service is an API that allows the computer to provide network services.[citation needed]"
1. I'm afraid there is no such thing as "the integral subsystem". Where did this term come from? There ARE things that could be called "integral subsystems" but there is no single "integral subsystem."
2. There is indeed a "security subsystem" (and this could be called "integral"). This part is mostly right, however a lot of the security subsystem is actually up in kernel mode, in the Se routines in the exec.
3. What does "looks after" mean? What functions are being performed, and by what components? Specifically?
4. Workstation and server services are not part of "the integral subsystem", whatever that means -- in particular they are not peers to the security subsystem components that run in user mode. Rather they are but two among the many various user mode "services" (these days they're both in one of the svchost.exe's). They are not part of any "integral subsystem", and there's a lot more to them than just an API. There are kernel mode components to both of these as well. The fact that they are not "integral" is easy to demonstrate: You can disable both of these services and Windows will continue to boot and run just fine.
I have a revised version of the user mode section, but policy says sweeping changes to a long-standing section should not be done without consensus. Please discuss. Jeh ( talk) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Hello! I think citation needed that we need way more CITATION NEEDED OMFG in this article. It is still way to readable. citation needed
-- 92.226.139.8 ( talk) 12:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) citation needed
The image Image:Winobj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I know it's Wikipedia editor standard practice to quote open source developers in as many tech articles as possible, especially on closed source projects. But the (uncited) Torvalds statement about the kernel design seems to me to be completely pointless. I'm sure there are many arguments by many kernel developers about how many different kernels should be classified, but so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1200 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I read a ReactOS webpage and it says something like: The NTarchitecture was designed by a team lead by David Cutler, a former lead developer of VMS. It took them more than 4 years to combine the best of UNIX, VMS and OS/2 and create the NT architecture.
Interesting. Maybe we could expand influences of UNIX and OS/2 onto NT. -- Komitsuki ( talk) 10:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Windows NT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Architecture of Windows NT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Architecture of Windows NT is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 19, 2007. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note: One should avoid excessive duplication between this article and other related articles such as Windows 2000, Windows XP.
Win2k (and all versions of windows AFAIK) are NOT microkernel based operating systems. According to Windows Internals 4th ed: "Windows isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels, where the principal operating system components ... run as separate processes in their own private address space". Windows Internals is written by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon (and considered to be authoritative). I'm going to try to reword the article, and perhaps expand on the issue at a later time. Consider the fact that the filesystem and much of GDI runs in kernel-mode. Timbatron 17:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the kernel mode take up 3 privilege levels of the μp? = Nichalp ( Talk)= 13:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that this article is moved to Architecture of Windows NT, as it applies equally well to NT and XP as to 2000 and Windows NT is often used to refer to any one of NT/2K/XP. -- R.Koot 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I second that -- in common usage, "NT" refers to the whole family from NT 3.1 through Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003. Similarly, 9x usually refers to non-NT releases of Windows -- Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME.
As for the privilege level question, NT uses only two privileges today -- user mode and kernel mode. On the x86 family of processors, those modes use code privilege level (sometimes called "ring") 3 and CPL 0 respectively.
I think there is a big problem with the new name "Architecture of Windows NT". It is factually incorrect, due to the whole line being discussed, and worse than that in software terms, it sounds obsolete. The discussion above did *not* reach consensus, and I like the others have no easy answer: Bad names:
Luckily, now that W98 will be is unsupported 2007 Q3 2006, that leaves the obvious:
Support Widefox 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Widefox: How about "Architecture of NT-based operating systems"? I'd really prefer to keep the "Aspect of subject" style of naming we've been using in most other Microsoft articles. -/- Warren 05:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth while mentioning ReactOS as it is attempting to reimplement the NT architecture.
But it's not NT. That's like mentioning linux in a BSD article.
Freeeekyyy (
talk)
20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On November 16, 2006 Microsft announced that there was an vulnerability in the workstation service and that exploit code had been created to attack vulnerable machines. [1] - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
References
See [1]. I understand that different drivers would be needed for ACPI or non-ACPI systems, but why is it so fundamental that they need a different HAL? Grouse 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As irrelevant and outdated:
Windows 2000 was designed to support the 64-bit DEC Alpha. After Compaq announced they would discontinue support of the processor, Microsoft stopped releasing tests build of Windows 2000 for AXP to the public, stopping with beta 3. Development of Windows on the Alpha continued internally in order to continue to have a 64-bit architecture development model ready until the wider availability of the Intel Itanium IA-64 architecture. The HAL now only supports hardware that is compatible with the Intel x86 architecture.
Preserved here because the information is factual and could be used elsewhere -- KJK::Hyperion 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits introduce phrases like "blah-blah-blah is a kludge which...." This is clearly POV. You may be right ... but the article needs to be unbiased, balanced, and without any sermonizing or judgement. Please have a cuppa tea and find more neutral ways to describe the details. If you can describe what's good and bad about the design, the user can draw his/her own conclusions. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The current structure isn't that great. The division between kernel and user mode components feels very artificial to me, as several kernel-mode components depend (for "everyday use") from user-mode components, and certain subsystems (like Win32) are divided between user mode and kernel mode more out of practical concerns (read: security) than by design. Also, Win32 has its own, parallel architecture, and the rest of the system can and does live fine without it.
In general, the article doesn't do justice to Windows NT's unique architecture and philosophy - no mention of features, like callbacks, that would make UNIX-heads' hair curl, turn gray and then fall. The article fails to bite.
So I will, sooner or later, reorganize it in a better structure, that makes the article less about "architecture" (actually more than it is now) and more about "philosophy":
-- KJK::Hyperion 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems sorely lacking in citations. Maybe some of the new eyes from it being featured will be able to give it a hand? -- Falcorian (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoever added those citation tags seems to have gone a little over the top. There are some statements are are so well accepted that to cite them is fussy to say the least. For instance: "The Windows NT hardware abstraction layer, or HAL, is a layer between the physical hardware of the computer and the rest of the operating system. It was designed to hide differences in hardware and therefore provide a consistent platform on which the kernel is run. [citation needed]" This is the very definition of a hardware abstraction layer - if it needs to be cited then it should be done so in the HAL article, not here. Can I suggest some of the more obvious requests for citation be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straussian ( talk • contribs).
While I can't speak to exactly which statements need citation, the article as it is now is ugly and messy. It is not possible that every sentence requires citation. I'd strongly suggest reverting to eliminate ALL of the "citation needed" tags; then, use this page to indicate just a few statements at a time that people feel really require specific evidence. Moishe Rosenbaum 02:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moishe, I didn't tag every sentence; only those I felt needed citations. The CN tag is intended to be a helpful way of enabling editors to see which statements need sourcing. It may make the article look ugly temporarily, but the end result is a much improved article. But, that said, I'm happy to adopt the "few sentences at a time" approach if others would prefer that. As I said above, if there are specific statements which people feel are so obvious that they do not need citing, that's fine, let's discuss and agree them here. One word of caution though, WP:V states that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to add material, not with those wishing to see it referenced. I've re-inserted the first 15 tags - if that's too many we can always take this in even smaller chunks - hopefully we can cope with 15 at a time though - let's do those first and then move on from there. SP-KP 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the well deserved FA status. I don't understand what appears to be excessive capitalization (title case) of common nouns. The fact that a common noun has an all caps acronym does not elevate the common noun to title case. Capitalization is justified for a registered trademark (in which case a registered trademark symbol should be added), but not otherwise. I am referring to terms like cache controller, memory manager, local procedure call, and many more. Am I missing something here? I don't want to go hacking away at an FA (I'm not that WP:BOLD), but I don't see a justification for this. If Microsoft capitalizes these terms in its own literature, that is not justification. Could someone please explain? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
At the top of the Executive paragraph, the following comment appears:
<! -- TODO: WMI, DBGK -- >
It seems that this article is FA now, but these things aren't mentioned. At some point, some editors felt that these two things ( Windows Management Instrumentation and Kernel User-Mode Debugging Support) should be discussed, but it seems that nobody ever got around to writing about them. Was this taken into account during the FA process? Perhaps these things need to be edited in anyway? After-all, these two things are part of the kernel. —msikma ( user, talk) 08:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Who was bored enough to write this? 81.153.125.209 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with this article please correct the lead ? WP:LEAD:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Start of article is also incorrect in saying Microsoft only released Windows versions supporting 64-bit processors starting with Windows XP. What about NT on the Alpha (a 64-bit-only chip)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.205.42 ( talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sparseness of references in this article; this aspect seems out of line with the article's featured status (although other aspects of the article all seem good). The date it was promoted to FA status probably provides the explanation - the standards for referencing were much looser two years ago than they are now. I plan to nominate this at FAR soon (the article is currently ineligible as it featured in the main page recently). The purpose of this note is to gives editors some advance warning, to seek views on which sections are most in need of referencing, and to encourage suggestions on appropriate references. SP-KP 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is now listed at Featured Article Review, with the aim of tackling the problem that it is sparsely referenced. SP-KP 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has far more problems than simply a lack of references.
I'll start with the user mode section:
"The user mode is made up of subsystems which can pass I/O requests to the appropriate kernel mode drivers via the I/O manager (which exists in kernel mode).[citation needed] Two subsystems make up the user mode layer of Windows NT: the Environment subsystem and the Integral subsystem."
Actually user mode is made up of a number of executables running in processes, plus various DLLs supplied by the system that are mapped into those processes. These components can be roughly divided into five categories:
1. System support processes such as those running smss.exe, winlogon.exe, services.exe, lsass.exe (ignore the "idle" and "system" processes; these are kernel mode components, although "system" does have some user mode address space in use)
2. service processes (similar to Unix daemons)
3. environment subsystem processes, and corresponding DLLs, which implement and export each subsystem's API set. Usually there is just one environment subsystem running (win32, represented by csrss.exe and various xxx32.dll's). A posix subsystem is available as a free download from MS. The OS/2 subsystem was dropped early in the Win2K timeframe.
4. Various ordinary user mode executables like userinit.exe and explorer.exe, required to implement the user's "shell" process
5. ntdll.dll, which exposes the native API to user mode
I don't know what is meant by "subsystems which can pass I/O requests to the appropriate kernel mode drivers via the I/O manager". I/O requests can be initiated by calling native APIs directly with no help from any "subsystems" whatsoever, environment subsystems or otherwise, even from a Win32 app. What does this qualification mean? ANY process in user mode can send I/O requests! (assuming it passes permissions checks to gain access to the intended file or device) But they don't talk to the I/O manager (IoXxx routines) directly. They can't, as no I/O manager routines are exposed for user mode call.
Which brings us to...
"The integral subsystem looks after operating system specific functions on behalf of the environment subsystem.[citation needed] It consists of a security subsystem, a workstation service and a server service. The security subsystem deals with security tokens, grants or denies access to user accounts based on resource permissions, handles login requests and initiates login authentication, and determines which system resources need to be audited by Windows NT.[citation needed] It also looks after Active Directory.[citation needed] The workstation service is an API to the network redirector, which provides the computer access to the network.[citation needed] The server service is an API that allows the computer to provide network services.[citation needed]"
1. I'm afraid there is no such thing as "the integral subsystem". Where did this term come from? There ARE things that could be called "integral subsystems" but there is no single "integral subsystem."
2. There is indeed a "security subsystem" (and this could be called "integral"). This part is mostly right, however a lot of the security subsystem is actually up in kernel mode, in the Se routines in the exec.
3. What does "looks after" mean? What functions are being performed, and by what components? Specifically?
4. Workstation and server services are not part of "the integral subsystem", whatever that means -- in particular they are not peers to the security subsystem components that run in user mode. Rather they are but two among the many various user mode "services" (these days they're both in one of the svchost.exe's). They are not part of any "integral subsystem", and there's a lot more to them than just an API. There are kernel mode components to both of these as well. The fact that they are not "integral" is easy to demonstrate: You can disable both of these services and Windows will continue to boot and run just fine.
I have a revised version of the user mode section, but policy says sweeping changes to a long-standing section should not be done without consensus. Please discuss. Jeh ( talk) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Hello! I think citation needed that we need way more CITATION NEEDED OMFG in this article. It is still way to readable. citation needed
-- 92.226.139.8 ( talk) 12:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) citation needed
The image Image:Winobj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I know it's Wikipedia editor standard practice to quote open source developers in as many tech articles as possible, especially on closed source projects. But the (uncited) Torvalds statement about the kernel design seems to me to be completely pointless. I'm sure there are many arguments by many kernel developers about how many different kernels should be classified, but so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1200 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I read a ReactOS webpage and it says something like: The NTarchitecture was designed by a team lead by David Cutler, a former lead developer of VMS. It took them more than 4 years to combine the best of UNIX, VMS and OS/2 and create the NT architecture.
Interesting. Maybe we could expand influences of UNIX and OS/2 onto NT. -- Komitsuki ( talk) 10:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Windows NT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)