Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 354629
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-11
It's hard to prove the architecture of a proprietary software, especially like Microsoft. So be cautious to say *no way* to any method Microsoft would do in. Even when something are installed separately, it may in the kernel. VM software are installed separately, but it is usually part of them has to be running in kernel.
I think you do not have to be surprised if Microsoft put anything that obviously should be user-space feature into kernel, because they can and they did. They internally claim to each other it is for performance sake and sometimes that misconception even leak to marketing.
Again, I don't know if IE is in or not in kernel, but I denounce the way too quick to say no way.