@asuffield said:
@Aaron said:Considering that [B]win[/B]3.1, [B]win[/B]98, [B]win[/B]NT, [B]win[/B]2k, [B]win[/B]xp, and [B]windows[/B] Vista all carry the brand name [B]Windows[/B]
Well that was a pretty dumb thing to say.
I carefully picked out versions which were more or less complete rewrite of most or all of the code.
Are you mentally challenged? Windows has never had a rewrite, with the only exception being the 9x line of consumer products. Even Vista isn't a rewrite, it's a fork from Win2003 SP1. They did try to do a complete rewrite after admitting the code base is stale and unmaintainable, and spent several years trying before finally giving up. Remember that vulnerability in Vista due to a problem in code from Win3.1?
2000 came from NT; they made substantial changes and additions to the core (especially with AD) but it's basically NT with a Win95-looking shell. I can't begin to fathom why you would include XP in your "carefully picked out" list of "more or less complete rewrites". Heck you even included Win98 which clearly wasn't a rewrite of Win95. That doesn't even look different to '95, much less function differently.
Or that Intel x86 won't survive
It's dead. AMD64 killed it.
So, x86 was killed by a 100% compatible extension, which even now most people aren't using because it seems most software companies can't work out how to compile 64 bit versions of their software?