UNIX in Microsoft or in other stuff?

I have seen a UNIX os, but I am not sure whether I should try to use this or not.  I was wondering if UNIX concepts had been used by Microsoft or other companies to develop their products.  Is Microsoft using UNIX technology in any way or form in their OS?  
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Irwin SantosComputer Integration SpecialistCommented:
Irwin SantosComputer Integration SpecialistCommented:
If you are using DOS (Disk Operating System) command line prompts, this are offshoots from UNIX.

If you like reading, hands on, are analytic, don't mind staying up all night long to work on UNIX, eat pizza and drink Coke.. then UNIX is FOR YOU!!! :-)
HiganteAuthor Commented:
Do you know if Microsoft or other companies had used UNIX in making or probably develop their OS?  If so, Microsoft may be in the right track.  What do you think?
Cloud Class® Course: SQL Server Core 2016

This course will introduce you to SQL Server Core 2016, as well as teach you about SSMS, data tools, installation, server configuration, using Management Studio, and writing and executing queries.

Irwin SantosComputer Integration SpecialistCommented:

Review that for more info.
Early DOS was actually more based on CP/M than UNIX. The .COM executable file format in DOS was specifically engineered to facilitate automated translation of CP/M .CMD executables to DOS. It wasn't until DOS v2.0 that UNIX-isms started to creep into DOS, with concepts like file timestamps and environment variables.

Micro$oft at one time had/owned a UNIX-like OS - Xenix. Like all other competition to their products that they acquired, they killed it, just like they did with FoxPro.

Historically, Micro$oft has used *NIX technologies in thier own environments, although they are loathe to admit it. Hotmail was started and run for a great many years on a *NIX (might have been an early FreeBSD, I don't recall). Redmond bought it about the time of NT v4.0 - they wanted to "prove" that NY could scale just as well as UNIX. It failed miserably, and it wasn't until fairly recently that they finally managed to get it migrated to Windoze.

Funny things is, according to a recent Slashdot article on this, the "Windows" they use at Hotmail is a stripped down version - no GUI, everything done at the command line or via scripts. Just like the typical *NIX adminstration environment. In order to replace *NIX, they had to re-architect their OS to be *NIX. It bears little resemblance to the OS they tell everyone to buy because its so great. PT Barnum was right.

Micro$oft used to tout that they could insure their software distributions were "virus-free". Why? They used UNIX-based computers to build their master disk images for their distribution media, and UNIX is immune to Windoze viruses.

Redmond also fronts (or fronted) their own internal E-Mail systems with sendmail running on *NIX. Why? It handles heavy loads much better than Exchange, and is immune to all the security problems posed by the Exchange environment.  Another case of selling the suckers the shiny box while using something else internally.

In terms of OS architecture, Windoze is more closely related to VMS than UNIX. Windoze is thread-oriented, and has poor memory protection mechanisms. Its design is monolithic as opposed to modular, and both networking and security were afterthoughts.

The designs of UNIX are process-oriented, with clear memory protection and resource separation. Its module design makes 3rd-party software integration relatively easy, and it was designed with networking in mind from pretty much the beginning.

Is Micro$oft on the right track? They certainly know how to market buggy software and get people to agree to insanely expensive licensing terms (Licensing 6.0, anyone?). If that's your measure of "right", then I guess they are.

Unix mostly work on Shell scripts, and  windows work on .exe and .dll

Shell scripts are also very easy to understand (if u have a little programming knowledge) and u can easyly make ur own scripts.
Unix and i am refering to real UNIX will be out of yours and my budget forevever, *nix  ie linux and freebsd etc etc etc ad nauseum, are all releativly cheap to free and are great software, but lets not get Unix and linux confused again though,

windows utilises components of unix in lots of lil parts of its operating system, and associated programs, ie internet explorer and outlook, but as Psicop said windows is more closely related to VMS, the unix add ins come courtesy of the Novell suxs corporation who in the early days kissed mr gates a$$ on a regular basis

i dont like microsoft and no i dont like apple either

To quote Bill Gates when people asked him what was the code base for windows NT and 2000, he said -

"Windows is essentially Unix".

Of course, that is not entirely true, but the keyword is "essentially".  It is "in essence" unix, because all the fundamental windows commands were derived from *porting* the same unix commands in a different format to develop DOS (and CP/M for that matter) -- so they are "in essence" the same, but of course, they are now very different.  

Example -- file attributes are taken from a larger set of unix file attributes.  md = make directory in DOs and unix, and you can find hundreds of examples of similar commands.  Windows is "essentially" unix.  Correction -- Windows was at some stage an "extract" of unix.
So to reply to your later questions --
" Do you know if Microsoft or other companies had used UNIX in making or probably develop their OS?  If so, Microsoft may be in the right track.  What do you think?"

Yes to the first -- you said it very well, Microsoft "had used" unix in making and probably developing their OS.  As to being on the right track, if money defines "right", then yes, they are on the "right" track.

What I think is that windows is nothing more than a file explorer with a series of pretty icons on a desktop, so are graphical unixes too, including linux.  From the user perspective, they "look" similar, but now they are very different underneath at the code layer.  But when you strip them even further down to the very basic features of the OS that make up the essential commands (like files and directories), at that very lowest level, they are remarkably similar, still.

I'm not really sure what you are asking for here when you say "I have seen a UNIX os, but I am not sure whether I should try to use this or not".

It all depends on WHAT you might intend using it for.  Are you just keen to experiment a little with different operating systems to see how they work(ed) to broaden your knowledge a bit or maybe just out of sheer curiosity?

Have you tried using one of the Linux distributions?
Linux is a free open-source operating system based on Unix and was originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers from around the globe.  There are loads of free versions based on offshoots of linux, for example Ubuntu Linux (http://www.ubuntu.com/) which can either be installed or run entirely from a bootable CD in its own environment (Live CD ISO Image: http://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/CDs/5.10/).


Other Distributions:

Linux/Unix commands:

There are vendors (like SuSE Linux) who sell their entire operating system and a vast array of applications in one easy-to-install boxed CD package.

Linux is really Unix made easy by virtue of the fact that it provides a nice graphic interface that can be made to resemble Windows functionality to a fair degree, but underneath it still allows access to all the command line functions that Unix users are familiar with.  Linux distributions can also co-exist with MS Windows on separate partitions/drives in the same computer, so you can boot into either.  Additionally, there is a huge array of software written for Linux, and most of it is also open source (linked page is by no means an exhaustive list):

I'm not sure if you already knew all this, or even if that's what you were asking or are interested to know, so just ignore my comment if it doesn't apply.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
windows was NOT "written to closely parallel its functionality to allow for an easy transition."
This is incorrect, sorry.  There was NO attempt to parallel -- the core DOS code was ADAPTED FROM existing unix commands, that is ALL.  After that, they diverged radically, there is no attempt to "parallel", the only similarity is in the core commands of DOS and UNIX.  This is to correct the point distribution for all future readers.
Thank you, Higante.

scrathcyboy.  Read my comment again before shooting it down.
Who said that Windows was written to parallel anything?
Microsoft allegedly (subject of historical debate hardly worth going into here) ripped off a load of ideas from other operating systems, but that's not what I said nor what I even intended to say or suggest.

What I DID say was that LINUX was written to closely parallel UNIX in functionality to allow for an easy transition.
Would you agree with that statement?
In reality, Linux was an extensive rewrite of Minix, which in turn was a "minimal unix clone".
Quote from Minix creator Andy Tanenbaum, 20 May 2004:
"MINIX clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code. Linus also used MINIX as his development platform initially, but there was nothing wrong with that".

OK, so perhaps you might disagree that the similarities in functionality (I'm talking about working from the command line here) between Unix and Linux were not intentionally done to "allow for an easy transition" and that perhaps it was just coincidental.  That part was poorly described by me, and would be better explained by saying:
"Linux was written IN A WAY THAT closely parallels its command line functionality to Unix WHICH allows for an easy transition to it by those who are already familiar with Unix".  

PsiCop refers to "UNIX-Like" operating systems, which is a much better description:

Anyway, let's not argue about this.

Have you thought about using an "emulator" to get the feel for UNIX or Linux?

It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Unix OS

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.