Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  Keeping portability to diverse architectures costs time and money.
Having portability is not a great commercial asset in the case of Windows.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had made the decision of forgetting
portability a long time ago. It's simply not cost-efficient in this case.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message