Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv writes:
>>=20
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> > jmfbahciv writes:
>>> >=20
>>> >> Bill Leary wrote:
>
>>> >>>> Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
>>> >>> For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much =
true.
>> >>>
>>> >>> Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
>>> >> Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
>>> >=20
>>> > Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also =
to
>> > designate specific releases.)
>>>=20
>>> Monitor releases which is not the app.
>>=20
>> The monitor and the interface are the same for late versions of
>> Windows. They are released together, sold together, and used =
together.
> =20
>>> >=20
>>> >>> Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or =
not.=20
>> >>> Or even if it's good or not.
>>> >>>
>>> >> Windows is the app.
>>> >=20
>>> > In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
>>> > the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.
>>>=20
>>> I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
>>> lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
>>> probably, The source of all its bugs.
>>=20
>> Oh, Windows has so *many* bugs, I'd hate to ascribe all of them to
>> just *one* of its design flaws...
>
>And besides design, there's also execution. One wonders just how much =
of=20
that code base (Microsoft's precious Intellectual Property jewel) was=20
>written by 20-year-old coders without adult supervision, for example.
Still is, the eye heroin in Vista is amazing.