Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:00 UTC

Thread beginning with comment 554534
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:
2005-11-29
Nah, that's just Microsoft with their crappy code with their prominent feature of vendor- and architecture lock-in.
Spoken like someone who has never had the task of porting legacy software a day in his life.
Windows and related software is just such a big mess that it takes tremendous efforts to port the code to new APIs or architectures.
Do you have any specific examples of deficiencies in Microsoft's design which make it "such a big mess"?
I'm genuinely curious, because it has been my experience that Windows RT has been more or less Windows x86 on lower power hardware. There is nothing inherently disadvantaged about it technologically.
I write apps that run across x86 and ARM without any issues that wouldn't normally exist outside of a software development cycle.
Microsoft, on the other hand, didn't even manage to write something as MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer or Microsoft Office in a portable way. They had to completely re-invent the wheel all the time.
Internet Explorer runs fully on Windows RT, so does Office 2013.
MSN Messenger is discontinued in favor of Skype (which also runs on Windows RT).
What are you talking about?
Stop defending them.
Adrian
Stop insulting my intelligence with such blatantly incorrect statements. This isn't 2006, Vista hasn't just launched, so you're about 7 years late to the game with your fanatical thicket of bullshit.