|
|
|
|
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
writes:
No you haven't.
Uh, yes, I have.
No one person has seen all those lines of code.
I haven't read every line, but I've seen most of the cool stuff. It
was a hobby of mine at one time.
If you
want people to believe you are privy to the inner workings of the NT
kernel, you will have to explain how you found the time to read and
understand so much of it that you can make such a bogus statement in
the first place.
You don't need to look at the code. Just write a program that runs in
a tight loop, and run it. If you can still switch to other tasks in
the system, you have preemptive multitasking. And on NT and its
descendants, you can do exactly that.
Talk is cheap on usenet. No one is impressed. Hey, for all you know, I
was on the development team.
No, you weren't.
Nope. Like I said, you do not have the proper defintion, or if it makes
you feel better, we are not applying the same definition.
I've spent part of my time writing operating systems for a living. I
have the right definition.
Everyone knows NT/XP/2000 is not windows 95.
But many of them don't seem to know much more than that, and they
don't seem to realize that NT/XP/200x have nothing to do with Windows
95 at all. They are a completely separate family of operating
systems.
Don't treat your readers like they are dummies.
I try to adapt as the situation warrants.
Hardly dead, and oh by the way, NT was built on early OS/2 code.
NT was built from scratch, as far as I know. There were disagreements
on development directions between Microsoft and IBM, and Microsoft
decided to go its own way.
NT and 2000 had plenty of OS/2 code in their kernel, and can even
run text mode OS/2 apps.
You can run MS-DOS apps, too, but that doesn't mean that NT contains
MS-DOS code.
If you had seen the code...... you would know that.
I don't remember if I ever looked at compatibility stuff. I wasn't
much interested in emulation.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|