Does multiplatormness matter anymore 13275

And they stopped trying to be portable at all. To address multiplatform support, they had to spin off a separate codebase (CE) which is kind of, but not exactly, like NT, and gives headaches to people who try to port between the operating systems.

Except for the extreme low end where there's no MMU (and no current version of Windows even *attempts* to run there), the same Linux codebase scales across all the architectures and platforms it supports. Same API, same features, etc.

You forgot IA64 (Itanic^Hum). All at major expense and after a long time. Note that, thanks to silliness in the APIs, porting to 64 bits was awkward and required some API tweaks. (The only thing remotely comparable in Linux I can think of is the bit of awkwardness supporting 64-bit filesystems - lseek vs. lseek64, and even that can be handled by a compile-time #define if you like.)

If you're coding properly, porting gets *easier* with time as platform-dependent buttumptions are identified and factored. Microsoft got short-term lazy about their codebase, and it cost them long-term. Witness how late out of the gate they are in terms of 64-bit support.

Sure, they've got lots of money. But these end up being separate codebases and their support headaches multiply; well, except for the ones they keep in-house and never let anyone else see, like the OS for the Xbox 360.

-- Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile." -Ken Thompson