Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
Windows The rumours about Windows possibly being ported to ARM has left a lot of people bewildered; why would you port Windows NT when Windows CE 6.0 is a perfectly capable operating system? Putting all the pieces together, it's actually quite clear why you would want Windows NT on ARM: servers.
Thread beginning with comment 454728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TheGZeus
Member since:
2010-05-19

The irony here (and keep in mind, I'm a big FOSS dude) is that if I understand it right, NT is more portable than ReactOS.

FOSS != "designed with portability in mind".
FOSS == "the code is there to be made portable by anyone who wants to port it".

Linux wasn't designed to be portable, originally. Read the original announcement email. It originally had a ton of 386 asm and depended on 386-specific instructions.

FOSS isn't necessarily 'portable' code, it's 'able to be ported' code.
Semantics, but yeah.

Reply Parent Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

The irony here (and keep in mind, I'm a big FOSS dude) is that if I understand it right, NT is more portable than ReactOS.

Reactos might be more portable than MS NT due to a lower amount of asm used. Please note Reactos is a NT design OS just built in the Open Source world from documents got on NT design.

FOSS != "designed with portability in mind".
FOSS == "the code is there to be made portable by anyone who wants to port it".

Linux wasn't designed to be portable, originally. Read the original announcement email. It originally had a ton of 386 asm and depended on 386-specific instructions.

FOSS isn't necessarily 'portable' code, it's 'able to be ported' code.
Semantics, but yeah.

Older the project in the FOSS world the more portable it becomes. Its a nature of the FOSS world as the backgrounds of the coders become more diverse so does the project supported platforms.

Yes a lot of FOSS projects started out platform locked one way or another.

Now closed source normally goes the other way. Portable and becomes less portable. NT use to support stack loads of different platforms but 2008 and Windows 7 support a small number due to cost cutting.

People forget that Internet explorer use to run native on Unix OS's.

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

Will ReactOS _become_ more portable? Possibly. We can't see NT's code, or try to compile it on some obscure architecture, so if it becomes as portable as NT has been shown to be, we can assume a tie.

FOSS doesn't necessarily become more portable over time.
That's a fallacy.

It's _often_ true, perhaps even _usually_, but _pleaaaaase_ don't make blanket statements in favour of FOSS that _aren't true_. It just becomes fodder for trolls.
ZSNES has been around for 10 years, and only runs on IA32.
Why? Because it's written in asm.
BareMetal OS isn't going to become portable because it's not a priority, it's not even close.

"Often" "Usually" but not "".
Qualify the statement and I'll say it's true.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

It's not a cost-cutting issue, those platforms just did not sell at all or had really bad marketing.

Compaq killed the Alpha right before Windows 2000, despite the fact that it was the most powerful platform at the time to run Exchange or SQL Server on. I saw 64-bit Windows 2000 running 64-bit SQL Server 2000 at PC Expo in 1999 at the Javits Center. It smoked everything x86 at the time. However, Compaq must have learned their marketing lessons from Commodore because it was never publicly released, and soon after, the Alpha line was killed off. There was genuine demand for their products, but they managed to screw it up.

The MIPS and PowerPC platforms also did not sell at all. They didn't sell much with anything other than UNIX or Mac OS on them. They both got killed after Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3. There was no way Steve Jobs was going to allow Windows to run on a Mac right after the clones (now is a different story!), which took away 90%+ of the PPC machines out there, and since this was soon after Microsoft gave the finger to IBM with OS/2, no way you were going to have it running on their POWER HW.

The Itanium managed to stick around until Windows Server 2008 R2. After this one, it's gone, and the only big-name OSes you will be able to get for an Itanic will be Linux, OpenVMS, NetBSD, and HP-UX. I'm sure there still will be ports of various other OSes, but it'll be pretty much dead outside of HP.

Microsoft is the kind of company that can afford to have multiple "Project Marklar" operations running. I'm sure that they have Windows running on ARM, MIPS (the Chinese variant), IBM POWER, and several other architectures (I'm guessing SPARC64).

Reply Parent Score: 2