Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Aug 2006 21:08 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 148842
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-12
If they keep backwards compatibility, no matters how much skilled security experts they get, it's going to be the same Windows.
But they have to.
I strongly disagree.
Most applications only communicate with Windows on the API level, and most Windows APIs aren't really concerned with the underpinnings of the kernel, filesystem(s), etc.
The API could easily be emulated on top of another platform. That's how Wine and Odin work, but Microsoft would have the huge advantage of having access to the real Windows internals. They wouldn't have to guess.
Besides, with today's virtualization technology and CPU resources, it wouldn't be all that hard to completely virtualize individual Windows instances under something totally dissimilar to the existing platform.
The "backwards compatibility" card has been played since Windows 95, and it's just as invalid now as it was back then. Perhaps more so.
Edited 2006-08-03 19:23