 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
was windows made with BASIC?
Please support our Legacy and Other Languages advertiser: Programming Forums - DaniWeb Sister Site
 |
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by big_k105 
im not thinking they used basic. my guess is they used c and assembly to create windows. and maybe some c++. i couldnt find anything to prove what windows was writen in but im pretty sure it was c and assembly
I believe the original Windows versions 1 and 2 (ick) through 3.1 were written first in assembler and later in assembler and C. The first versions of Win NT and Win95 were probably written mostly in C++.
didnt windows 1/2/3 have some pascal in it?
NT based systems are nearly entireley assembley and C
NT based systems are nearly entireley assembley and C
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
What's wrong with being thirteen-thirty-seven?
The nice thing about Gentoo is that your applications are optimised for your system. Sometimes you need that extra speed you won't get from a downloading a binary compiled to use only the '386 instruction set.
The nice thing about Gentoo is that your applications are optimised for your system. Sometimes you need that extra speed you won't get from a downloading a binary compiled to use only the '386 instruction set.
i dont see the speed benefit of compiling optimised apps from source.I just use 386 or 686 binaries and it is fast enough
building an optimised kernel does make a diff though
building an optimised kernel does make a diff though
Last edited by jbennet; Dec 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm.
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
Thank you for that information. My generation hoarded clock cycles like misers. I've just come back to coding after a long absence and I'm horrified at what looks like sheer carelesness and bloat. It looks like 3 megabytes is the new 16k.
•
•
•
•
My generation hoarded clock cycles like misers. I've just come back to coding after a long absence and I'm horrified at what looks like sheer carelesness and bloat. It looks like 3 megabytes is the new 16k.
how the hell can an OS justify being up to 18gb when installed!
Last edited by jbennet; Dec 9th, 2007 at 8:38 am.
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
•
•
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 147
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 13
Junior Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Thon
Thank you for that information. My generation hoarded clock cycles like misers. I've just come back to coding after a long absence and I'm horrified at what looks like sheer carelesness and bloat. It looks like 3 megabytes is the new 16k.
That's what is known as progress. It's what keeps us all employed.
Say "Thank You".
Hoppy
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,596
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 1488
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Thon
Thank you for that information. My generation hoarded clock cycles like misers. I've just come back to coding after a long absence and I'm horrified at what looks like sheer carelesness and bloat. It looks like 3 megabytes is the new 16k.
About Windows 1.0 and MS-DOS 1.0 -- I remember those too. DOS version 1.0 did not have any support for subdirectories and Windows 1.0 was all text based, no graphics or fonts other than the operating systems default font. It ran on top of DOS instead of integrated with it.
Don't PM me with questions -- you might get a nasty PM in response. If you have a question then post it in one of the forums.
Actually, all versions of Windows before Win95 (not counting the versions of Windows NT) ran on top of MSDOS.
Even Win95 and Win98 (and probably even WinME) had remnants of MSDOS hidden away underneath. That's why they were far flakier and insecure than NT.
Even Win95 and Win98 (and probably even WinME) had remnants of MSDOS hidden away underneath. That's why they were far flakier and insecure than NT.
Vista got bloated because of the perceived need for more security (probably needed, but the cure is often an annoying message box asking the superuser if he really wanted to change that feature, for instance.) and user interface "BLING" (not needed).
I'm typing from a Vista machine now. The only blue screen encountered was during the initial bootup. Reinstalling took care of the problem that caused the blue screen, and it's been stable since.
If you get a Vista machine, you have a choice of how much "bling" you want in the interface. While Aero features seem stable, I got annoyed by the semi-transparent window feature, and turned that off after two weeks. FWIW I allow OS updates, and haven't had a problem with any of them.
Incidentally, I consider the Mac OS to be full of bling also, though my non-geek wife loves her Mac. Tastes vary.
I'm typing from a Vista machine now. The only blue screen encountered was during the initial bootup. Reinstalling took care of the problem that caused the blue screen, and it's been stable since.
If you get a Vista machine, you have a choice of how much "bling" you want in the interface. While Aero features seem stable, I got annoyed by the semi-transparent window feature, and turned that off after two weeks. FWIW I allow OS updates, and haven't had a problem with any of them.
Incidentally, I consider the Mac OS to be full of bling also, though my non-geek wife loves her Mac. Tastes vary.
Last edited by paoconnell; Dec 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pm. Reason: typo, YMMV added to the end of the comment
|
Other Threads in the Legacy and Other Languages Forum
- Previous Thread: Haskell Error Message
- Next Thread: Prolog help using sort lists
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Latest Legacy and Other Languages Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
Related Forum Features
Tag cloud for Legacy and Other Languages
