That makes absolutely no sense.

Right. I guess you didn't call a 286 a PC? How about a 386 computer?

The step of 80286 to 80386 was much larger than the step to AMD64, but do you refer to a 80386 as "anything that would interpret x86"? Given the rest of the post I guess "yes".

... I guess your phone is one too then?

Of course. PC doesn't necessarily mean one uses it only for personal tasks.

You are a confused individual. Try not to waste my time the next time, some thinking before writing makes a huge difference.

Most times yes. But ISA was what IBM PC compatibles were referred to as earlier when one didn't want to mention IBM... That applied to MCA, EISA, PCI etc. version of the standard.

Nowadays we just say "PC" and all but a small group will complain. Wasn't that the start of this sub-thread by the way?

That doesn't change what I wrote? You can take your MSDOS and boot it on your new i7 computer. If you are referring to the ISA _slots_ themselves you could easily make a LPC to ISA adaptor in a FPGA. But I guess you are trying to insert some non-existent expert knowledge or something?

Exactly. Also referred to in the past as the ISA (Industrial Standard Architecture). And even though ISA slots are long gone* PCs still are compatible with the old standard. This to the extent that some bus accesses will be artificially slowed down to conform to AT performance even though that isn't documented.

(* actually there still is remnants of it in the form of the LPC (Low Pin Count) bus)

What?

How about you grow up instead?

You really are a huge idiot, aren't you?

Then I hope you'll take one for the herd?

Maybe the _fact_ that medication have to go through _scientific_ testing to _ensure_ they are _effective_ and have _less_ serious side-effects have anything to do with it?

BTW US isn't the world - there are several countries with laws designed to reduce the effect of PR in medicine.

The country didn't put poison in anything. Crooks put poison in some things, yes. But crooks aren't only located in China...

They used hydrogen cyanide (in the form of Zyklon B) and carbon monoxide (from engine exhaust) in their extermination camps. The labor camps didn't try to kill people efficiently.

Cool! How many unicorns have you seen since?

Windows NT was based on a modified VMS design combined with microkernel ideas. But it never was based on or even inspired by Mach.
And while OS X does use Mach it isn't Mach - it just uses it for some functionality, not as a kernel proper.

Oh and your idea that either of them uses a generic IPC design is wrong too. QNX does though.

Depends on what you mean by that. They couldn't simply port stuff to the new microkernel, AIX, OS/400 etc. wasn't suitable to move to the new kernel. One of the big problems IIRC was endianess.
When the grand unified theo^H^H^H^HOS didn't work out it all fell apart. This in combination with the failure of PPC as a new personal computer platform, the disinterest of others to use the Workplace OS kernel, the failure of Taligent and a lot of other things made sure the project was canceled.

But OS/2 was ported and ran on the microkernel so that part of the project did succeed.

These days you don't see the same hype around microkernals that you did back then. So we should probably warn the HURD team: If your boner for microkernals lasts more than 25 years, you should probably consult a physician.

QNX, Nemesis, K42 and L4 based systems shows that to be false.

What? QNX isn't inspired by Minix - it was released 5 years before Minix!