Author: Bo Persson
Date: 01:39:56 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 19:08:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 16:52:17, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > > > >>Sorry, I'll be clearer this time: >> >>(Talking about claim that Windows kernel is written in the assembler) >> >>SARCASM ON: >> >>This is definitely so, especially if you take into account that NT/2k/XP >>variants were commercially sold not only for x86, but for PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, >>and IA-64 CPUs. Of course MS wrote 5 kernels in the different assembler >>languages... >> >>SARCASM OFF. >> >>Vincent is the only source from which I hear that fact. And if I have to choose >>between Vincent's words and NT source code on one of my developer's machine, >>I'll trust the later... > >So there is a C version too. Cool to know. Hey, Vincent, cool down. It was the Windows 95 series that was written especially for the x86 (and DOS compatibility). The NT series of Windows has always been written in C/C++, with a machine independent design. There are some adaptions for different hardware architectures, like virtual memory and I/O, but that is in a separate "hardware abstraction layer". I guess that might include some assembly language, but its just a very small part of the entire system. > >But for your notice, yes the released thing has major assembly parts in the >kernel. Of course you don't know what the other divisions of microsoft are >doing. I guess you are in the compiler division? So you don't think the compiler guys have access to the Windows and Office source to test their compilers? Come on! Bo Persson bop2@telia.com
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.