MS DOS

Vista was built on top of the 2003 code, rather than side-by-side, as the developers were taking too long adapting the XP code base and mucking about with features.

Server 2008 is based a lot on the Vista code base. Server 2008 R2 incorporates a lot of the new technologies found in Windows 7.
 
stoofa said:
No they haven't? Microsoft is very firm about this subject. That each Windows is an incremental improvement on the last.

I don't know where you are getting that information from.
There is next to no NT4 code in Windows 7.
Every other version of Windows has been almost a complete re-write.

2000
90% of which made XP
Vista
90% of which made 7

XP contained more code from NT3 and NT4 than it did from Windows 2000. Simply because Windows 2000 inherited 90% of its code from NT4, and NT4 inherited 90% of its code from NT3.

Now you are just taking the **** and basically arguing for the sake of arguing.
XP contained approx. 90% of the code base of Windows 2000.
We don't need to go any further back than that.
Once Windows 2000 was released it was no longer "NT4 Code", it became the product Windows 2000.

Vista was definitely not a new OS. It was based on the Windows Server 2003 code base (which in turn was based on 2000/XP). It was classed as a major release because, like Windows 2000, it contained a lot of breaking changes and technical enhancements to the kernel.

Vista & Server 2003 were designed along side each other and so yes, share code.
Vista was NOT based on Server 2003 - the two OS's were written side by side.
Vista was a major release in that it contained hardly any code from it's predecessor - XP.

You are throwing in Server OS's as if they are written seperately from the desktop OS - they are not.

Windows 2000 Workstation/Windows 2000 Server - Written side-by-side
Windows XP
Windows Vista/Windows 2003 Server - Written side-by-side
Windows 7/Windows 2008 Server - Side-by-side
Click to expand...

Good lord. You seriously do think that every other release of Windows is a complete rewrite? Wow :eek: I thought it was only Neowin forum posters that held those crazy beliefs!

You may be a beta tester but you certainly don't know jack about Windows.

The only thing that came close to rewrite was Windows 95. The reason I say that is because it was a pretty huge thing to be able to run 32-bit code on top of a 16-bit MS-DOS boot loader. No Windows NT based OS (and that's NT3, NT4, 2000, XP, XP x64, Server2003, Vista, Server2008, W7, Windows vNext) has *ever* (and I mean EVER) had anything that could possibly be described as a rewrite done to it. Ever.

Stating that Windows 2000 Workstation and Server editions were written "side by side" is rather stating the obvious, no?

Unless you have anything factual to add I'm going to leave this one here. I fear that any attempts to correct your misunderstandings and seemingly apparent desire to spread FUD and misinformation on this topic will be met with further inflammatory responses.
 
SiriusB said:
Vista was built on top of the 2003 code, rather than side-by-side, as the developers were taking too long adapting the XP code base and mucking about with features.

Server 2008 is based a lot on the Vista code base. Server 2008 R2 incorporates a lot of the new technologies found in Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Yup. Vista/Longhorn actually started off being built on the XP 32-bit code base. But as everyone knows, the project was heavily off schedule. When the "Longhorn Reset" occurred around Mid 2004 they decided to scrap everything that they had done and start the Longhorn project more or less from scratch. They selected the very latest version of the NT code base in the form of Windows Server 2003 (by which time a x64 variant also existed). They then started shoehorning some of their work from the original Longhorn project back into it. Eventually they released this as NT 6.0 and Vista in 2006.

Server 2008 came after Vista, and it is formally designated as being an NT 6.0 OS. So yes, it is based on Vista. When Windows 7 / NT 6.1 arrived, Microsoft released Server 2008 R2 which was based on the NT 6.1 code base. The fact that certain OSes are highly related to one another (due to their codebase inheritance) is visibly demonstrated by Service Packs. For instance the SP1 for Windows 7 is also compatible with Server 2008 R2. There is a single download that will be installable onto both OSes. Vista was the same. The SP1 and SP2 were multi-homed in that they can be installed onto either a Vista or Server 2008 machine. Without OSes that highly inherit from one another this type of upgrade packaging would not be possible. By no means were these OSes written "side by side". Vista was launched in 2006, and Server 2008 was launched in 2008. That's a 2 year gap, so I don't see how they could possibly be described as being born together as twins ala. "side by side".

Moreover if every other release of Windows truly was a rewrite (they aren't, so don't worry) then Microsoft's token sales pitch of "backward compatibility" would be in tatters. It is pretty clear for anyone to see this isn't the case. The MSDN documentation clearly shows the inheritence hierarchy of the different OSes. Most API calls started their lineage back in NT 3 or NT 4 and were maintained all the way through to the present day. I've been a Windows user (and ISV software developer) for over 15 years now and in that time you grow familiar with certain System DLL files existing in certain places and the behaviour of certain Win32 APIs. If there had been any form of rewrite in that time I would have noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom