Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
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 454806
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.
RE[8]: I *really* doubt the server angle.
by mbpark on Mon 27th Dec 2010 02:33
in reply to "RE[7]: I *really* doubt the server angle."
Member since:2005-11-17
RE[9]: I *really* doubt the server angle.
by TheGZeus on Mon 27th Dec 2010 03:05
in reply to "RE[8]: I *really* doubt the server angle."
Member since:2010-05-19
RE[8]: I *really* doubt the server angle.
by TheGZeus on Mon 27th Dec 2010 03:04
in reply to "RE[7]: I *really* doubt the server angle."
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.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.
This isn't usenet or IRC. You can bold and italic the text.
"
Yes, because 7 characters gets the same point across with so much less effort than two.
O_O
On the topic:
Wasn't the latest NT kernel a substantial rewrite? I think it was...
NT once ran on systems that are no more, so it's no longer true. And having over 5 years of development concentrated on x86 brings in a lot of non-portable code.
We can argue as much as we like, but the fact is that we just don't know. Unless you happen to work for MS in that division.
We know the latest server products runs on three architectures, and ReactOS works its best on one, and kinda boots on another.
You're _wrong_. It's not bad to be wrong. It's bad to refuse to admit it in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Edited 2010-12-27 03:06 UTC
RE[8]: I *really* doubt the server angle.
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 27th Dec 2010 03:17
in reply to "RE[7]: I *really* doubt the server angle."
Member since:2006-01-02
RE[9]: I *really* doubt the server angle.
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th Dec 2010 23:58
in reply to "RE[8]: I *really* doubt the server angle."
Member since:2009-05-19
I work on NT. Just like any other OS (Linux, BSD, etc), it doesn't get rewritten every release. Some code gets changed, other code stays the same. It's more evolutionary than you seem to think.
It's quite disappointing to hear that major version change did not yield substantial changes in the kernel...
Member since:
2009-05-19
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.
This isn't usenet or IRC. You can bold and italic the text.
On the topic:
Wasn't the latest NT kernel a substantial rewrite? I think it was...
NT once ran on systems that are no more, so it's no longer true. And having over 5 years of development concentrated on x86 brings in a lot of non-portable code.
We can argue as much as we like, but the fact is that we just don't know. Unless you happen to work for MS in that division.