Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Nov 2006 20:44 UTC
Paul Thurrott takes a long look at Vista. "It's hard to put Windows Vista in perspective. On the one hand, the product has been in development for over five years, which means that Vista had one of the longest development cycles in the 20+ year history of Windows. Paradoxically, Windows Vista is both revolutionary and evolutionary. While it includes modern OS features, such as a new hardware-based graphical user interface, Vista will also feel like familiar territory, for the most part, to anyone that's already familiar with Windows XP. And Mac advocates can claim, truthfully, that many of Vista's best features appeared first on Mac OS X, sometimes years ago."
Thread beginning with comment 180936
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-14
Whether something is portable or not has nothing to do with to how many platforms it is actually ported
But when it's actively ported to lots of platform and works on them in the latest version available, we know it's portable.
When it's not actively ported like that, we sure enough can't assert it's portable, and can't disprove people that say it isn't portable.
It's even worse when the company puts out another product for other platforms.
Linux is ported to more paltforms not because it is nescesrally more portable, but just because you don't have to have a company's approval to do so
But Linux works on more platforms because it is more portable.
Saying MS has no incentive to make NT for more platforms is wrong as they made WinCE for some architectures, not WinNT : why ?
NT is a hybrid kernel, and therefore it is probably even *more* portable than the monolithic architecture of Linux
Which is BS as Linux has loadable modules and limited message passing capabilities heavily used, so is hybrid too.
Anyway, that Windows NT is probably more portable doesn't change the fact that it is not ported on as many architectures, not as efficient as Linux on any of the architecture it runs, supported 64 bits after Linux, does not scale as well on SMP/SMT.
Given only that, I understand all you can do is brag on the probability of WinNT being more portable than Linux : there are not so many unprovable things left to brag about.