Bo Eriksson <s.d@...> wrote: > I wont go into great detail, but Win2000 is NOT > "based" on NT-tech Sorry Bo, but this is incorrect. It is using a lot of NT code. Please do not think that it is a total rewrite - no matter what the marketing says. Nearly everything I've seen from this OS shows behavior betraying its NT codebase. Let's put it another way - it has to be largely based on NT in order to support all the existing NT apps out there without requiring major recompilation. > it is based > on a new purchased windows-compatible core with NT > and 98SE bits slapped onto > that to make it appear Microsofty and reasonably > compatible. Microsoft brought over a lot of programmers from the VAX/VMS camp, after Compaq bought Digital and all but abandoned this platform. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of when you say "purchased windows-compatible core"? > Microsoft has never had the working name of win2000 > as NT5. They've gone through a lot of names for this, and NT 5.0 was the original one that everyone in the industry refered to, including many inside Microsoft. The point is that this is the successor to NT 4.0 as their "enterprise" operating system, no matter what they decide to call it. > The "NT5" > beta-version that was seen quite a while ago used an > improved NT4-core and they > struck their head into a wall when trying to get it > completely NT and > 95/98-compatible. So they switched path completely. Ummm, not quite. There were no publicly known eye-opening events causing them to shift direction. I've been following the win2K spec for a few years now and nothing has ever jumped out as a sudden shift in direction. We've always known that they're dropping certain legacy support (16-bit code, for example). Graham __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com