Ballmer: Highend Windows, Office coming
Grug poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
No. I sure don't mean NT 5 (2000) and NT 5.1 (XP). Why would I make a the comment I did about two minor version differences.
OT Internal Idenbreasty Change, and a Warning
I hope this gets through, but in any event somebody out there's getting real cute, and...
Sure it does. I'm basically agreeing with Ballmy that the Windows versions of today cannot handle high-performance computing, and so they will have to fork a new version to have any hope of beating out Linux.
It should be quite obvious that that is not what I'm referring to
Sure I have. (Though I've never tried to recompile Windows with it, guffaw, chortle snort). Are you trying to say that they will recompile Windows to obtain high-performance computing? I don't believe you are saying that.
That is the userland app world. Ballmy and I are talking about kernels and basic operating system infrastructure support. Stick with the argument here. In this world, Linux is a unified code base. Sure, there is some conditional compilation dirt to deal with different computer architectures, but every Linux distro runs of the same code base (ignoring that they have slightly different release numbers).
There was a post here a few days ago (I *think* it was here--I can't find the article) where someone linked to this article: Having now played with Virtual Earth...
You obviously completely misunderstood me (which, of course, is partly my fault), so I hope the foregoing clarifies.
I will say that Microsoft has finally gotten rid of the Win 3.1-95-98-ME versus NT schism, so their code is a bit more unified than before.
But I don't really know if you can (or can't) call the Win CE, Win NT, Win Media Center, and Win-Xbox a unified code base. Probably a trade secret, unless some loose Microsoft lips have been flappin'.
-- Tux rox!
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups