Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|