Warp wrote:
>   It's Windows in name only. It probably doesn't share any code (at least
> at kernel level) with the regular Windows.

It supports many of the same APIs, tho. Basically, your knowlege of how 
things work is supposed to be portable. The actual code itself? Probably 
much less so.

>   This is in contrast with eg. the Linux or NetBSD kernels, which are
> designed to be compiled as-is to different architectures (including
> many embedded ones).

Yeah. I wonder if Vista et al is as portable as NT used to be, like whether 
they managed/bothered to maintain that for the most part or not.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message