enough...I am very sorry to have started the entire topic...
... this entire thread started when I asked, via a PRIVATE POST, what Mark
what his source was for the statement that Windows was written in VB...
sadly, many emails later, I have yet to see this question answered...and why
Mark did not respond privately to me I do not though - although, admittedly
I did not make that intention on my part clear in my email to him...
Mark - your original post said that Windows was written in VB - I took this
to mean the OS, as would many persons... now you say you meant C/Assembler
all along for the kernal...and VB for "the rest"... that is a "nice"
clarification, if a little late...
however, my conclusion is very little, if any, VB was used in either the
Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/Me product line or the Windows NT line...for one
thing, the Windows API generally required a fair amount of pointer usage,
which VB did not support at the time...even in the area of the Windows
GUI...
for anyone who is interested, a very enjoyable book is "Showstopper" - a
book about the development of Windows NT...Dave Cutler, the principal
architect of NT, was the guy who was responsible for VMS (Digital, back when
they were actually a real company...) NT was based on VMS and Mach, but was
burdened with a number of other requirements, including the need to provide
some Windows 3.1/DOS applications compatibility...
this is not to say it is any good - please don't misunderstand me ;-)
rbh
Linux User 193554
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [newbie] RE: Windows can't be written in VB
> Thats exactly what I said the first time I responded. That the
> "kernel" was/is written in C and Assembler. But I guess that part was
> overlooked in all the other posts.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> / * Sometimes it becomes necessary to rock the boat
> * in order to get the rats up from below decks
> * so they can be kicked over the side and drowned!
> *
> * REGISTERED LINUX USER # 182496
> */
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*REPLY SEPERATOR*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] had this to say!
>
> > Well You are wrong
> >
> > First Windows Kernel is written in (C & Assembly)
> > Second Windows 2K is Win NT 5, Windows ME is just Win 9X Kernel with
> > extensions.
> >
> > I my self work on both linux and Win 2K. and although it is easy to
attack
> > M$, but I must say that Win 2K is well stable and efficient OS.
> >
> > So if you want to attack be at least correct with your knowledge!!!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
