From: Ulf Diabelez Harries (Ulf_at_harries.dk)
Date: 2005-06-17 15:07:03
> > > But, at least, MS *tries* to retain backward-compatibility.
True..
> > Some counterexamples: Windows doesn't include version numbers in the
> > file names of shared libraries, so you can't have multiple library
> > versions installed at the same time.
Used to be true..
> This is not how it is meant to be. If a DLL replaces another
> one, and it
> does not export the same interface (at least, as a
> sub-interface), that
> DLL is not meant to have the same name. Thus, in theory (!),
> there is no
> need for a version number.
This ought to be true, but turned out not to be so a new feature called
Dynamic-Link Library Redirection was invented.
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllpro
c/base/dynamic_link_library_redirection.asp)
..since it is mainly intended for 3rd party apps, some tinkering is
needed if one wants to redirect system DLLs.
> MS removed HPFS support with NT4; nevertheless, you could
> install it if
> you could get your hands on the appropriate driver file.
..actually, I think it's still there, but in READ-ONLY mode... I ought
to check that out some day.
> [snip] all that I see is
> that MS tries
> to remain as backwards-compatible as possible. Sometimes,
> this does not
> work, but at least, they try to.
Next version (Longhorn) will have no Posix, OS/2 or any other legacy
subsystem.
..but it gets a new Command Line Shell, which seems really cool (like a
merger of VMS, UNIX and .NET) ;-)
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.