you guys really should do a little more research into the languages M$ has
used to write windows with. Since Win3.11 only the kernel has been written
in something other than VB. Visual BAsic (not the script). The kernel is
written in Assembly and M$ C++.
--
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 Thu, 30 Nov 2000 Rick Commo had this to say!
> --- Dave Sherman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ---
> Actually, the Windows versions from 1.0 thru 3.11 were written in a
> combination of C and C++. Win95 and later are pretty much all C++, except
> some older libraries that are still around. Even Microsoft isn't foolish
> enough to write their OS in VB -- that product is marketed (in a sort of
> unspoken rule) for non-programmers and non-professionals. Visual C++ is
> MS's "enterprise strength" development tool.
> ------
>
> Thanks you Dave!
>
> Finally! The first sane thing said on the thread on "Windows Written in VB"
> which somehow managed to get under this Subject line. It's been fun
> watching this "thread" meander and the *completely* off-base remarks made
> from some people.
>
> I try to be OS agnostic - after all it's not a religion, nor should it be.
> So I try to judge the merits of any OS on how it "treats" me and what I can
> get done with it.
>
> At work I use Win2K. Here at home I use Win2K, Win98 (soon to go away) and
> Linux. My Linux experience began when I tried REDHAT a couple of years ago.
> I got it running and used it for a few weeks but eventually dropped it.
> Recently I tried Mandrake, mostly on a whim since I saw a 7.1 box in Costco
> for $25. I really liked what I saw!! My Linux system (HP Pavilion 3265)
> has given me some problems with freezes. Since I was (am) a newbie I didn't
> know how to restart the X server with ctrl-alt-bs. Therefore I probably
> rebooted the system when I didn't really have to. I'd like to eventually
> get the sound going on it, but it may use a non-supported, on-board sound
> chip. I will keep Linux around from now on. For the record, I have had
> exactly one BSOD on my home system (CPQ AP200) running Win2K. More than that
> with my Win98 system, but not terribly more - but once it was just sitting
> there doing nothing when it BSOD'ed!! As for resource usage, yes, raw Linux
> (no windowing system) can get by pretty cheaply. Add X, KDE and the
> windowing apps and I've found that I would want a machine that is just as
> "big" as my typical Windows machine.
>
> Let's digress for a moment. I sift through 100/200 or message each day on
> [newbie] and [expert] and actually read a lot of them. I am always bemused
> by the fact that there is *such* dichotomy within the Linux ranks. On the
> one-hand various writers rave about how they want Linux to beat the bad,
> ugly giant from Redmond. Then out of the other side of their collective
> mouths they say (when the going gets tough) hey, this is Linux - learn it
> and how your computer works! This was especially true in the thread (could
> have been in [expert] reflector) where there was a lot of Mandrake bashing
> going on because Mandrake was trying to make it so *easy* to install Linux!
>
> Now let's bring it back. Personally, I enjoy the innards of computers and
> OSes, wish I know more about all of them and enjoy playing with them when I
> have the time. But if Linux is to really compete with MSFT OSes on the
> desktop two things need to happen (1) installation has to be an absolute
> breeze and (2) there need to be easy to install apps that are in demand.
> Not just or two, but the whole panoply of the Apps space. A vast, VAST
> majority of people don't care what's under the hood. To misquote a comment
> made to Bush (Sr.), "It's the appliance dummy!"
>
> Painful as that is to all of us who really enjoy diving in, 95+ percent of
> users will say, "I just want to use my computer, just like I want to use my
> car." My 84 year old father uses Win98 on an HP machine. For the most part
> it's been stable enough for him. I support him from 1800 miles away. It's
> hard enough on WIn98, but I shudder to think what it would be like under
> today's Linux. And most of the time I am so time-constrained that I want
> any OS I touch to "just work". I get just as angry when something in Linux
> doesn't work as I do when something in an MSFT OS doesn't. In both cases I
> just want to use the computer - to write mail, to browse or to develop.
>
> For the most part 7.1 has been a lot of fun to use. When I am done testing
> some ham radio communications software that a friend is developing I plan to
> upgrade to 7.2, or the first full update after 7.2. I am also looking
> forward to trying the KDE and Gnome equivalents to Office. Tried
> StarOffice, but really didn't like the way it created a sort of desktop
> within a desktop - yukk!
>
> Mandrake is doing is great and is on the right path!! Let's support them
> and eventually there will be a choice for those that want it - they won't
> have to become "Linux friendly users", because Linux will have matured.
>
> So... I'll climb into my asbestos suit now - with this crowd I'm gonna need
> it!
>
>
>
>
>
