Paul G. Allen wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 20:30 -0700, Tracy R Reed wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Unix was always the toughest to get working on a new microprocessor.
Windows was always the easiest.
I'm confused. If this is so then why does Unix run on so many different
processors? It was even ported for free by hackers over very short
timeframes. And Windows so few?
Because the statement is incorrect?
I think everyone's reading this backwards. I believe, from context, that
the original statement is not "Windows is easiest to get running on new
processors" as much as it is "getting a new processor to run Windows was
easier than getting a new processor to run UNIX." This statement
followed one in the thread that said "Unix bangs on hardware more than
Windows does."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
